d  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  <f> 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


BX  7301  S955 
Summerbeil,   N.  1816-1889. 
Discussion  on  the  Trinity 
church  constitutions  and 


Digitized  by 

the  Internet  Archive 

in  2014 

https://archive.org/details/discussionontrinOOsumm_0 


DISCUSSION 

ON  THB 

TRINITY, 


HUMAN  DEPEAVITY. 

BETWEEN 

N.  SUMMERBELL, 

PASTOR  OF  THE  FIRST  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH,  CINCINNATI,  OHIO, 
AND 

REV.  J.   M.  FLOOD, 

XX-P&ESIDBNT  OF  THE  OHIO  CONFERENCE  OF  THE  M.  P.  CHURCH. 


HELD  IN  CENTREVILLE,  OHIO,  FROM  AUGUST  2,  TO  AUGUST  9, 1854. 

COMPRISING 

Fifty-dght  alternate  Speeches  of  Thirty  Mimdes  each. 


REPORTED 

BY  BENN  PITMAN,  PHONOGRAPHEE. 

EXAMINED  AND  CORRECTED  BY  THE  PARTIES. 


CINCINNATI: 
PUBLISHED  BY  APPLEGATE  &  CO., 
No.  43  Main  Street. 
1  8  5  4. 


TO  THE  READEE. 


The  Preliminary  Letters,  Rules,  and  arrangements,  are  as 
foreign  to  the  subject,  as  uninteresting  to  the  public;  we  there- 
fore leave  the  speakers  to  make  their  own  introduction ;  only 
prefacing  it  with  the  following,  from  Discussion,  page  432  : 

"The  congregations  were  usually  large,  and  much  of  the  time, 
very  much  crowded.  All  the  meetings  were  opened  with  prayer, 
and  a  general  religious  interest  pervaded  the  whole." 


**The  Discussion  between  Messrs.  Flood  and  Summerbell,  at 
Centreville,  on  the  Trinity,  <fec.,  which  commenced  August  2,  and 
closed  August  9,  1854,  was  reported  by  me  :  and  after  the  speeches 
of  each  party  had  been  submitted  to  the  respective  speakers  for  cor- 
rection, were  delivered  to  the  printer  in  sealed  packages. 

BENN  PITMAN." 


"  Cincinnati,  0.,  October  13,  1854. 
The  above  packages  have  been  received  by  me,  sealed;  and  opened  here. 

C.  F.  O'Driscoll." 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  Eighteen  Hund- 
red and  Fifty-four,  by  N.  Summerbell,  in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the 
District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  tlie  District  of  Ohio, 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


PEOPOSITION  FOR  DISCUSSIOJ^. 

"Is  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  set  forth  in  the  Discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  especially  with  regard  to  the 
equality  of  Jesus  Christ  with  the  Father,  in  substance,  power, 
glory  and  eternity,  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  Word  of 
Grod?  "    X.  ScMJfERBELL  affirms  ;  Rev.  J.  M.  Flood  denies. 

Wednesday  Moening,  Aug.  2,  1854. 

After  prayer,  Mr.  Siimmerbell  said :  We  meet  on  this 
occasion  to  advance  the  cause  of  truth,  and  with  no  de- 
sire to  criminate  each  other  as  debaters.  We  were  chosen 
by  other  parties  to  conduct  this  discussion.  Xo  one  chal- 
leno;ed.  This  is  true  at  least  in  my  case,  and  I  have  no 
doubt  my  brother  can  say  the  same.  For  the  cause 
which  I  am  here  to  argue,  I  bespeak  your  most  candid 
consideration.  We  have  for  a  great  number  of  years 
been  a  persecuted  people.  The  time  has  been  when  we 
would  not  have  been  allowed  to  live,  much  less  hold  this 
discussion.  In  a  letter  just  received  from  a  friend,  urging 
me  to  forsake  my  laith,  he  says,  "  If  you  were  living  un- 
der some  laws,  you  would  have  to  suffer  death  for  your 
heresy,  as  did  Michael  Servetus."  We  have  for  centu- 
ries thus  suffered :  but  thanks  be  to  God,  we  live  now  in 
a  free  country,  which  guarantees  to  its  citizens  the  right 
to  think  as  theii-  conscience  dictates.  Do  not,  my  friends, 
be  prejudiced  against  my  cause,  because  I  am  not,  on 
what  you  consider,  the  orthodox  side  of  this  question.  It 
is  no  advantage  to  me  to  be  on  the  wrong  side ;  and  did 
I  think  this  wrong,  I  could,  if  I  desired,  obtain  admis- 

3 


NOV  I860 
HSOLOGICi:L 


4 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


eion  into  a  more  popular  denonunation.  The  other  side 
would  probably  admit  me,  if  I  could  admit  their  faith. 
But  I  am  honest  where  I  am  :  weak  it  may  be,  but  claim- 
ing your  indulgence  therefore  all  the  more.  I  have  not 
the  advantage  of  the  theological  literature  of  my  oppo- 
nent on  my  side,  nevertheless,  I  hope  to  draw  from  those 
^mtings,  the  admission  that  we  are  safe,  and  to  substan- 
tiate from  their  own  admissions,  that,  notwithstanding  all 
our  trials  and  persecutions,  we  are  an  Orthodox,  Evan- 
gelical, and  Biblical  people;  that  our  views  are  right; 
that  they  are  the  same  which  God  commanded  through 
his  prophets  and  apostles,  and  that  were  held  by  the  early 
fathers  of  the  Christian  church,  as  well  as  by  a  goodly 
portion  of  the  Christian  world  at  the  present  time. 

But  first,  I  will  give  you  the  opinions  of  some  of  the 
leading  writers  on  my  opponent's  side,  in  reference  to  the 
Trinity — the  propriety  of  making  it  a  test  of  fellowship, 
and  the  possibility  of  proving  it  from  the  Bible. 

These  are  great  and  learned  men,  and  are  considered 
by  many  as  authorities  on  these  questions ;  and  if  they 
can  not  prove  the  existence  of  the  Trinity  from  the  Bible, 
yet,  my  brother,  "perhaps^  can. 

Dr.  McAU  says,  We  know  of  no  greater  heresy  than 
unnecessarily  to  divide  good  men.  Let  the  bigot  frown; 
let  the  base  and  interested  partisan  seek  to  cover  with 
unmerited  dishonor,  all  who  can  not  lend  themselves  to 
support  his  darling  peculiarities,  or  his  still  more  darling 
emoluments ;  but  the  Christian  should  endeavor  to  con- 
ciliate, in  love,  etc."    Dis.  v.  1;  260,  300. 

Bobt.  Hall  attributes  the  divisions  to  "  the  disposition 
to  found  their  [Christian]  union  on  the  'hay,  wood  and 
stubble'  of  human  inventions,  or  disreputable  tenets  in- 
stead of  the  Eternal  Kock,  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints."    Hall's  Works,  ii,  10,  468. 

Dr.  Doddridge  declared  concerning  one  called  an  Arian, 
whom  some  wished  excluded  from  his  church,  "  that  he 
would  sacrifice  his  place,  and  even  his  life,  rather  than  fi^x 
such  a  mark  of  discoui-agement  upon  one,  who,  whatever 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITY. 


his  doctrinal  sentiments  were,  appeared  to  be  a  true 
Christian."  Dr.  Kippis  in  Biog.  Britannica,  Yol.  v,  p.  307. 

Dr.  Watson,  the  pride  of  orthodoxy,  said  of  the  Duke 
of  Grafton,  who  denied  the  Trinity,  "  I  was  happy  to  see 
a  person  of  his  rank  professing  with  intelligence  and  sin- 
cerity, Christian  principles.  If  any  one  thinks  that  a 
Unitarian  is  not  a  Christian — I  think  otherwise.*'  Bp. 
"Watson's  Life,  Yol  i,  p.  75,  6 ;  ii,  227.  Dre.  Gibson, 
Turner,  Parr,  Chalmers,  etc.,  express  themselves  the  same. 

The  most  intelligent  men  testify  that  it  is  not  essential 
to  salvation.  Bishop  Tomline  says,  in  his  Elements  of 
Christian  Tlieology,  Yol.  ii,  p.  222,  "  Our  church  (of 
England)  would  have  acted  more  wisely  if  it  had  not 
adopted  the  damnatory  clauses  of  the  Athanasian  creed." 

Bp.  Watson  remarks  on  the  expediency  of  revising  the 
Liturgy,  p.  67,  ''The  Trinity, as  explained  by  Athanasius 
or  any  other  man,  I  can  not  look  upon  to  be  so  funda- 
mental as  not  to  be  revised  or  exchanged.''  Also, 
"  Ever}^  human  explication  may  be  an  error  ;  and  what 
may  be  an  error,  can  not,  and  ought  not  to  be  imposed  as 
a  fundamental  Christian  verity." 

Limborch,  Theo.  Christianity,  says,  p.  5,  9  and  ix,  10, 
speaking  of  the  obscurity  of  the  doctrine ;  '*  It  can  not  be, 
that  the  belief  of  such  doctrines  is  essential  to  salvation." 

Archbishop  Tillotson,  one  of  the  highest  bishops  in  the 
Church  of  England,  says  of  the  Athanasian  creed,  "  The 
account  is  in  nowise  satisfactory.  I  wish  that  we  were 
well  rid  of  it."  Simpson,  in  his  Appeal,  p.  356,  says, 
"  And  so  do  I,  for  the  sake  of  our  common  Christianity." 

Simpson,  App.,  p.  357,  prays  in  his  old  age  for  the 
Lord  to  pardon  him  for  having  read  it  in  church  in 
his  youth,  and  really  renounced  his  living  sooner  than 
read  it  in  the  church  of  England  in  his  latter  years. 

Le  Clerc,  Insp.  Scrip.,  p.  108,  says, Men  have  thought 
it  an  honor  to  be  styled  orthodox, — to  be  linked  to  a 
part}', — and  to  load  others  with  calumnies,  and  damn  by 
an  absolute  authority." 


6 


DISCTJSSIOX  ON  THE  TRIXITY. 


Bp.  Watson  asks.  Life.  vol.  ii,  p.  87,  88,  ''What  is 
this  thing  called  orthodoxy,  which  mars  the  fortunes  of 
honest  men  i 

Tillotson  says,  Yol.  i,  19,  "  We  desire  no  better  evi- 
dence that  any  man  is  wrong,  than  to  hear  him  de- 
clare against  reason,  and  so  acknowledge  that  reason  is 
against  him."' 

Dr.  Wm.  Sherlock,  in  his  Knowledge  of  Christ,  ch.  3, 
sec.  3,  says,  **  Is  it  not  intolerable  presumption  for  men 
to  shape  religion  according  to  their  fancies  and  humors, 
and  stuff  it  with  an  infinite  number  of  orthodox  proposi- 
tions, none  of  which  are  to  be  found,  in  express  terms, 
in  the  Scriptures,  but  only  pretended  to  be  deduced  from 
some  little  hints  P  &c. 

Hawies  thought  Dr.  Samuel  Clark,  an  English  bishop, 
as  bad  as  a  deist,  but  the  Church  of  England  retained 
him  as  one  of  their  brightest  ornaments.  See  Hawies,  i, 
p.  253. 

My  brother  will  obserye  that  I  quote  from  high  author- 
ities— authors  who  are  uniyersally  acknowledged  to 
be  orthodox.  You  see  the  views  I  take  are  right.  A 
person  who  does  not  belieye  in  the  Trinity  is  set  down  as 
a  blasphemer.  "  Dr.  Clark  is  as  much  a  blasphemer  as 
Socinus.-'  {Ihid.) 

That  the  Trinity  is  not  according  to  reason  is  admitted 
by  themselves. 

"  Salmeron  says,  Yol.  iv,  p.  505,  "  The  Trinity  is  com- 
pletely hidden  from  our  natural  light.'' 

Dr.'  Owen  says,  *'  What  is  there  in  the  whole  book 
that  nature,  at  first  sight,  doth  more  recoil  at  than  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  I 

He  here  admits  that  nature  recoils  at  it ;  and  that  it  is 
contrary  to  reason. 

Dr.  Wiseman  observes,  Who  will  say,  that  by  any 
stretch  of  imagination  or  reason,  he  can  see  it  possible 
how  three  persons  in  one  God  can  be  but  one  Godhead. 
If  the  Eucharist,  which  is  more  clearly  laid  down  than 


BISCUSSIOK  ON  THE  TKINITT. 


the  Trinity,  is  to  be  rejected  on  that  ground,  (reason)  how 
is  it  possible,  for  a  moment,  to  support  the  Trinity  ?  " — 
Let.  Doc.  p.  370. 

Dr.  South  said,  "  Were  it  not  to  be  adored  as  a  mys- 
tery, it  would  be  exploded  as  a  contradiction." — Ser. 
vol.  iii,  p.  240. 

Dr.  Stewart  says,  "  The  Athanasian  and  Nicene  creeds 
destroy  the  full  and  proper  equality  of  the  persons  in  the 
Godhead.  Tiie  Son  is  made  dependent  on  the  Father ; 
the  Holy  Ghost  also." — Com,  on  Rom.  Exc.  l. 

Luther,  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  was  opposed 
to  the  introduction  of  the  Trinity  into  their  code  of 
belief.  He  says,  (Rat.  Laton.  ii,  240),  "  Let  wretched 
mortals  give  honor  to  God,  and  either  confess  that  they 
do  not  understand  his  words,  or  cease  to  profane  them 
with  their  own  new  and  peculiar  expressions." 

You  will  not  deny  that  this  is  a  new  and  peculiar 
expression.  ^ 

Calvin  says,  (Tractat.  Thol.,  p.  796)  "  I  dislike  this 
vulgar  prayer,  '  Holy  Trinity,  one  God  !  have  mercy  on 
us,'  as  altogether  savoring  of  barbarism.  We  repudi- 
ate such  expressions,  as  being  not  only  insipid,  but 
profane." 

Of  course,  he  was  writing  against  the  Church  of 
England. 

Dr.  Maclaine,  Mosheim's  Ec.  Hist.  5th  Cent.,  part  ii, 
chap.  5,  note,  says  of  the  Trinity,  ^'  The  use  of  this  word, 
(Trinity)  and  other  unscriptural  terms,  to  which  men  attach 
either  no  ideas  or  false  ones,  has  wounded  charity  and 
peace,  without  promoting  peace  or  knowledge.  It  has 
produced  heresies  of  the  veiy  worst  kind." 

Carlisle  says,  (Con.  Apud.,  41)  "I  confess  that  I  have 
ever  disliked  the  use  of  the  word  Trinity,  in  prayer  to  God." 

Bishop  Beveridge  says,  "  The  Trinity,  though  fre- 
quently intimated  in  the  Old  Testament,  yet  it  is  a  hard 
matter  to  rightly  understand  it  without  the  New  Testa- 
ment, insomuch  that  the  Jews,  (fee,  could  never  make 
this  an  article  of  faith." — Private  Thoughts,  vol.  ii,  p.  66. 


8 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


I  want  you  to  understand,  that  they  think  they  never 
could  gather  it  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  the 
Jews  could  never  have  made  it  an  article  of  faith. 

Says  Bishop  Burnett,  "  Take  the  Old  Testament  with- 
out the  New,  and  it  must  be  confessed  that  it  will  not  be 
easy  to  prove  this  article  (Trinity)." — Expon.  39th  Art., 
art.  1,  p.  39. 

These  are  great  men,  of  considerable  experieqce,  and 
though  they  cannot  prove  this  doctrine  by  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, my  brother  perhaps  can !  A  peculiarity  of  the 
defenders  of  this  doctrine  is,  that  they  are  all  sure  that 
nobody  ever  yet  has  properly  defended  the  Trinity,  or  can 
do  it,  but  themselves ;  and,  on  a  careful  review,  their 
friends  all  admit  that  they  have  not  done  it.  They 
mostly  admit  that  it  is  not  in  the  Old  Testament ;  others 
admit  that  it  is  not  in  the  Gospels ;  some,  that  it  is  not 
in  the  Acts ;  others,  that  it  is  not  in  the  Epistles ;  and 
others,  that  it  is  not  revelation  but  tradition.  Some  give 
up  all  texts  but  1  Tim.  iii,  16,  and  1  John  v,  7 ;  and 
Griesbach,  Barnes,  IS'ewton,  Dr.  A.  Clarke,  and  hosts 
of  others,  admit  that  they  (the  orthodox,  pious  souls !) 
forged  these.  But,  my  friend  here  thinks  that  he  can 
prove  it  all  from  the  Bible !  If  this  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  were  true,  God,  in  making  a  revelation,  would 
have  named  it  somewhere.  It  would  be  necessary  in 
writing  your  will,  if  you  left  property  to  your  child,  to 
name  that  child  somewhere  in  your  will.  So  God,  in 
making  a  revelation  of  an  important  doctrine,  upon 
which  our  salvation  depended,  would  not  have  left  it  to 
be  inferred  from  ambiguous  texts.  My  friend  must  find 
the  Trinity  named  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  he  must  so 
define  the  texts  as  to  make  them  mean  all  that  his  creed 
makes  them  mean.  I  am  sure  that  the  highest  honors 
are  in  store  for  him  if  he  can  accomplish  this.  I'll 
guarantee  him  a  cardinal's  cap  from  mother  Eome. 

Let  us  now  direct  our  attention  to  the  creed,  or  consti- 
tution, as  my  brother  would  prefer  to  call  it. 

Art.  1.    There  is  but  one  living  and  true  God,  with- 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


9 


out  body  or  parts."  To  understand  this  I  will  read  their 
exposition. 

"  The  Bible  is  very  clear  on  the  doctrine  of  but  one 
God,  &c.,  but  as  soon  as  we  open  it  again,  and  in  other 
places,  another  doctrine  is  presented,  (the  Trinity)  which 
seems  to  conflict  with  this  first  statement." — Notes  on  the 
Twenty-five  Articles  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
by  Rev.  A.  A.  Jimeson,  M.  D.,  in  which  they  are 
carefully  considered  and  supported,  page  65. 

Here  the  supporter  and  defender  frankly  owns  that  the 
Trinit}'-  is  another  doctrine^  which  seems  to  conflict  with 
the  first,  which  is  very  clear.  Now,  a  doctrine  of  the 
Bible  should  be  found  so  clearly  expressed,  at  least,  as 
that  it  may  certainly  be  found  by  tlie  sincere  Bible  stu- 
dent ;  such,  however,  Mr.  Jimeson  admits  is  not  the 
case.  He  says,  "  No  one  doubts  the  existence  of  but  one 
God,  who  has  carefully  studied  the  Bible  ;  but  there  are 
persons  who  not  only  doubt,  but  deny  the  doctrine  of 
three  persons  in  this  one  God." — Page  66. 

Why  it  is  that  even  those  who  carefully  study  the 
Bible  deny  this  doctrine,  is  further  explained  by  Mr. 
Jimeson,  where  he  says  of  the  Trinity,  "  This  term  is 
not  found  in  the  Bible,  it  is  true,  but  it  is  a  very  appro- 
priate term  to  express  this  great  doctrine." — Page  66. 

But  many  will  say,  though  it  conflicts  with  the  unity 
of  God,  and  be  not  easily  found,  and  though  the  term  is 
not  in  the  Bible  at  all,  yet  the  doctrine  is  surely 
positively  stated  in  some  one  text.  No,  Dr.  Jimeson 
admits  that  it  is  not.    He  says : 

"  As  nothing  positive  on  this  doctrine,  (of  Trinity) 
can  be  drawn  from  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  our  fuller  and 
final  proof  must  be  found  in  the  Christian  Scriptures. 
Even  here,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  in  all  its  extent 
and  modifications  is  taught  in  no  single  passage." — P.  69 
and  Nean.  i,  572,  says  the  same. 

Nor  is  Jimeson  peculiar  iu  thus  admitting — while 
trying  to  prove  the  Trinity  by  the  Bible — that  it  is  not 
revealed  in  it.    Dr.  Goodman  says,  "  Scarce  the  footstep 


10 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


of  the  three  pei-sons  is  distinctly  seen  in  the  creation  or 
the  Jaw." — Con.  Apnd.  43. 

Bp.  Bevcridge  says,  "  Though  frequently  intimated  in 
the  Old  Testament,  yet  it  is  a  hard  matter  to  rightly  un- 
derstand it  without  the  New^:  inasmuch  as  the  Jews 
could  never  make  this  an  article  of  faith." — Private 
Thoughts,  ii,  26. 

Dr.  South,  Dr.  Longley,  Bishop  Burnet  and  others, 
and  Dr.  Clarke  think  that  the  distinction  of  persona 
was  not  fully  evident  till  after  the  incarnation.  Heb.  i, 
2. —  Commentary . 

The  remark  of  Dr.  Jimeson,  on  page  28  of  his  "Illus- 
tration and  defence  of  the  Articles,"  is  worthy  of  all  notice. 
He  says : — 

"The  doctrine  of  one  living  God  is  eminently  the 
doctrine  of  the  Scriptures.  Beyond  these  the  specula- 
tions of  philosophy  have  been  confused  and  of  atheisti- 
cal tendency." — Dr.  Jimeson  on  the  Twenty-five  Articles. 

But  let  us  further  examine  the  article  itself 

Art.  I.  "  There  is  but  one  living  and  true  God,  without 
body  or  parts."  This,  Dr.  Jimeson  admits,  plainly  con- 
tradicts the  Bible.    He  says,  page  40  : — 

"But  it  maybe  objected  that  the  article  contradicts 
many  of  the  descriptions  of  God  in  the  Bible.  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  it  does  contradict  those  passages  where  God 
is  described  as  having  a  seat  on  a  throne ;  as  walking,  as 
speaking,  as  having  a  face,  eyes,  hands,  etc.;  but  these 
descriptions  of  God  are  employed  in  condescension  to 
our  feeble  and  imperfect  conceptions  of  what  God  is,  etc.;" 
but  the  Doctor's  explanation  is  not  ingenious.  He  thinks 
that  God  is  spoken  of  as  having  a  body  in  condescension 
to  our  w^eakness  ;  but  affirms  that  such  statements  of  the 
Bible  are  untrue,  and  mislead  our  weakness :  and  of 
course,  thinks  our  weakness  better  guarded  by  their  rejec- 
tion. 

Art.  L  "  Without  ho dy  or  parts.''''  So  says  the  creed  ; 
but  God,  who  never  formed  the  creed,  says,  "  I  will  put 
thee  in  the  cleft  of  a  rock,  and  will  cover  thee  with  my 


,  DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


11 


Iiand  while  I  pass  by,  md  I  will  take  away  my  hand  and 
thou  shalt  see  my  back  parts  :  but  my  face  shall  not  be 
seen." — Ex.  xxxiii,  22.  Comment  is  nnnecessary  ;  those 
who  love  God  will  believe  him  :  but  those  who  prefer  the 
creed  will- believe  it. 

Article  1.  says  that  God  is  without  hody  /  but  Article 
in.  says,  that  he  took  again  his  body,  with  all  things  per- 
taining to  man's  nature.  Without  parts,  yet  "in  unit}'!" 
Unity  without  parts.  "  In  unity  of  this  Godhead  there 
are  three  persons."  Here  is  a  nnion  without  parts. 
Three  persons,  and  but  one  God.  With  a  body  and  all 
things  pertaining  to  man's  nature,  yet  without  body  or 
parts. 

Art.  I.  "Three  pei^ons  of  one  substance,  power  and 
eternity,  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost."  Now  con- 
cerning this  one  substance,  power  and  eternity,  we  wish 
to  know,  how  they  really  understand  it  ?  Dr.  Jimeson 
calls  it : 

"  God  and  the  two  OTHER  persons  that  compose  the 
Trinity."  Mark  you  !  God  and  the  two  other  persons. 
So  it  seems  that  tliere  are  two  other  persons  beside  God 
in  the  Trinity.  Hear  Jimeson  again,  p.  67  :  "  It  is  not  a 
question  that  God  is  the  Creator, — but  that  other  persons 
are  in  the  Godhead."  That  is,  other  persons  beside  God, 
or  other  persons  who  are  not  God  I  They  admit,  of 
course,  that  Christ  is  one  of  the  other  persons :  but  that 
they  are  not  satisfied  that  he  is  really  God  himself,  is 
proved  by  their  saying,  pp.  74,  85.  Phillip,  ii,  6,  speaks 
of  a  person  "equal  with  God."  The  original  is,  "  like 
God."  See  Macknight.  It  is  as  evident  to  every  school- 
boy, that  no  person  would  be  declared  to  be  equal  with 
himself,  as  that  God  has  no  equal ;  yet  by  trying  to  prove 
Christ  equal  with  God,  they  in  effect  admit,  that  he  is 
neither  that  God  with  whom  they  compare  him,  nor 
equal  to  him  whose  infinite  greatness  is  unquestioned. 

Art.  I.  "  Three  pei-sons  of  one  substance,  power  and 
eternity — the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost."  Now  since 
their  candidates  are  required  to  study  Clarke,  let  us 


12 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


note  him  to  see  if  they  believe  in  this  eternity  of  the 
on. 

Clarke  says,  "  I  cannot  close  in  with  the  common  view 
of  what  is  called  the  eternal  sonship  of  Christ.  I  know 
not  of  any  scripture,  fairly  interpreted,  that  states  the 
divine  nature  of  our  Lord  to  be  begotten  of  God,  or  to 
be  the  Son  of  God ; "  and  states  frankly,  that  he  told 
Wesley,  that  he  could  not  admit  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
if  he  had  to  receive  the  common  doctrine  of  the  eternal 
Bonship.  So  that  the  Son,  instead  of  being  eternal 
and  equal  with  God,  is,  according  to  Clarke,  only  about 
1800  years  old.  Mark  that ! — Comment  is  unneces- 
sary. Tliat  they  do  not  believe  the  Son  equal,  even 
where  they  admit  his  divinity,  is  sufficiently  proved  by 
the  whole  tenor  of  their  worship,  as  I  shall  show  in  the 
future.  They  may  admit  the  Logos  equal ;  but  the  creed 
says  the  Son.  Tiie  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not,  the 
Father,  Logos,  and  Holy  Ghost,  but  the  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost. 

Mr.  Flood's  First  reply: 

1  appear  before  you  to  respond  to  the  remarks  of  my 
worthy  brother,  on  the  proposition  submitted  for  discus- 
sion. First,  I  invite  your  attention  to  the  preliminary 
remarks  which  my  brother  expressed  ;  to  which  senti- 
ments I  cordially  respond,  and  hope  we  have  not  come 
together  for  the  purpose  of  criminating  each  other,  but 
to  dwell  together  in  this  place  as  brethren,  while  we  are 
engaged  in  the  investigation  of  this  important  subject. 
He  says,  w^ith  regard  to  his  denomination,  that  they  have 
been  a  persecuted  people  for  a  long  time,  but  he  hopes 
that  his  views  may  be  received  here  without  prejudice  ; 
but  he  affirms  that,  at  a  former  period  of  the  Christian 
church,  they  were  in  the  majority,  but  that  he  has  now 
the  sad  misfortune  to  be  found  in  the  minority  ;  and  he 
himself  ardently  desires,  in  view  of  these  unfavorable 
circumstances,  that  he  should  not  be  the  subject,  or  vic- 
tim, of  your  unrestrained  prejudices ;  and  1  would  put 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


13 


in  a  plea  in  his  behalf.  He  may  be  assured,  that  he 
will  not  be  persecuted  by  any  portion  of  our  friends  now 

-  present,  from  the  fact  that  they  happen  to  be  in  the 
majority,  and  have  come,  as  I  understand,  to  be  spoken 
of  here  as  ortiiodox.  He  says  further,  that  in  times  past 
they  have  been  persecuted  even  to  death  ;  that  must  have 
been  wlien  their  opinions  ceased  to  be  regarded  as  true  ; 
but  those  who  will  take  the  pains  to  search  into  the  early 
history  of  the  church  of  Christ,  will  find,  in  the  fourth 
century,  in  the  year  328,  or  thereabouts,  an  account  of  a 
controversy  on  this  subject.  Noiu^  orthodoxy  is  in  the 
ascendant ;  then^  Arianism  was  in  the  ascendant.  I  am 
happy  to  find  my  friend  so  well  posted  in  all  that  is 
likely  to  be  adverted  to  in  this  discussion ;  then  he  need 
^  not  be  in  the  slightest  fear  that  his  arguments  will 
remain  unanswered.  I  must  say,  however,  at  the  outset, 
that  I  gave  this  brother  notice,  that  I  would  be  here,  but 
I  did  not  receive  from  him  the  slightest  intimation  that 
he  would  be  here ;  but  I  find  him  liere,  with  documents 
regularly  written  out,  from  which  he  quotes  certain 
authorities,  which  I  cannot  now  run  over,  showing  a 
spirit  of  tolerance,  in  modern  divines,  toward  Unitarian- 
ism,  Arianism,  or  whatever  other  shade  of  diversity 
might  have  existed  between  professors,  in  which  great 
men  have  said,  and  very  justly,  that  good  men  should 

#not  be  debarred  from  communion  with  the  church  of 
Christ,  or  deprived  of  fellowship,  because  of  honest  dif- 
ferences of  opinion  existing  on  this  subject.  The  senti- 
ments of  these  authors  I  endorse ;  so  that  my  good 
brother  and  I  will  have  no  controvei*sy  on  that  subject ; 
but,  he  remarks,  that  Luther  did  not  desire,  at  the  time 
of  the  Reformation,  that  the  doctrine  should  be  intro- 
duced into  their  creed.  It  was  not  designed,  on  the  part 
of  my  brother,  to  intimate  that  Luther  was  not  a  Trinita- 
rian !  There  can  be  no  question  that  Luther  was,  at 
every  period  of  his  ministry,  a  stanch  supporter  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  fully  believed  in  the  equality 
of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as  stated  in  the 


14 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


Gospel ;  but.  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  and  to  avoid 
a  war  of  words,  in  the  times  that  tried  men's  souls, 
Luther  might  have  been  unwilling  that  that  disputed 
question  should  be  started,  and  thus,  possibly,  defeat  the 
great  work  they  had  in  view.  It  gives  evidence  that  the 
great  reformer  was  a  man  of  tolerance,  and  did  not 
desire  to  chain  the  consciences  of  men.  or  to  curb  them 
in  a  free,  intellectual  pursuit  of  divine  truth  ;  he  assumes 
that  the  upholders  of  the  Trinity  have  a  peculiar  method 
of  proving  their  doctrines — a  method  differing  from  all 
others ;  and  when  they  have  gone  through  with  it,  a  want 
of  conviction  that  the  position  has  been  proven,  or  even 
that  they  themselves  have  succeeded  in  proving  their 
position. 

I  will  now  venture  upon  the  proof  of  this  doctrine  of 
the  equality  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  in  my 
peculiar  way.  The  proposition,  standing  in  the  form  as 
presented,  rebutting  evidence  is  admissible.  In  this 
connection,  it  is  propter  to  make  reference  to  authoi-s 
quoted  by  my  opponent ;  for  instance,  he  quotes  from 
Ji meson,  a  portion  of  his  treatise  on  the  Articles  under 
consideration,  for  illustration.  I  stand  here  to  defend 
Jimesou.  I  stand  here  upon  Bible  grounds.  Is  the 
Bible  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?  I  admit 
that  the  term  Trinity  does  not  occur  in  the  Bible,  but  I 
do  not  admit  that  my  opiX)nent  is  correct  in  stating  thatss 
the  term,  in  this  connection,  is  modern  ;  it  is  a  term  that 
has  long  been  in  use,  and  employed  in  this  controvei-sj 
as  far  back  as  the  days  of  Arius,  in  the  fourth  century; 
however,  it  is  not  to  be  res]3ected  on  account  of  its  anti- 
quity, any  more  than  any  other  phrase  expressive  of  an 
important  truth  :  according  to  Mr.  Webster,  in  reference 
to  the  character  of  the  Deity,  it  signifies  tJcree  in  one.  a 
union  of  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  or  Holy  Spirit,  and,  of  coui-se.  as 
it  is  employed  in  this  sense.  I  use  it  as  a  Scripture  phrase, 
and  as  expressive  of  a  Scripture  doctrine.  Hence, 
(though  I  am  not  tenacious  of  the  phraseology.)  I  am 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


15 


very  tenacious  for  the  tmth,  which  that  phrase  represents 
and  expresses.  There  are  several  terms  in  the  proposi- 
tion to  be  considered :  The  first,  is  the  term  Trinity, 
which  signifies  three  in  one,  and  is  expressive  of  three 
distinct  |)ersons  in  one  undivided  Godhead :  the  second 
term.  Godhead,  represents  the  divine  natm-e,  as  a  whole, 
as  possessed  of  three  persons.  This  term  does  occur  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  will  be  found  in  Komans  i,  20, 
"  Even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead  ;  "  in  Golossians 
ii,  9,  "  for  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  God- 
head bodily.''  Here  we  have,  in  two  places,  the  ex-pres- 
Bion  Godhead  ;  "  in  the  first,  Christ  is  spoken  of,  in 
connection  with  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead  ;  Christ  s/ 
is  equal  with  the  Father  in  power  ;  here  it  is  asserted,  in 
emphatic  terms,  ''his  eternal  power  and  Godhead." 
This  term  relates  to  the  infinite,  eternal,  and  immutable 
nature  of  the  Deity,  the  embodiment  of  which  dwells  in 
Jesus  Christ,  and,  I  assume,  nowhere  else  ;  that  there  is 
one  God,  the  Fatlier,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  that  these 
three  are  one,  in  substance,  glory,  and  eternity.  But, 
my  brother  goes  on  to  state,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  not  apparent  from  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  that  it  has  been  admitted  by  Trinita- 
rians to  be  so.  I  join  issue  with  my  brother  here.  I 
think  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  though  not 
expressed  in  the  same  plain  phraseology  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament,  as  found  in  the  New,  is,  never- 
theless, clearly  to  be  inferred  from  nj^merous  passages,  and 
that  there  can  be  no  question  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  was  understood  by  the  Old  Testament  believers ; 
received,  and  received  as  essential  doctrine.  Genesis  i, 
26. — "God  said.  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  and 
after  our  likeness."  The  use  of  a  plurality  of  persons, 
in  this  expression,  is  evidence  sufficiently  conclusive  that 
more  than  one  person  is  understood  in  this  great  work 
of  creation ;  "  let  us  make  man  after  our  image,  after 
our  likeness."  Genesis  xi,  7. — "Let  us  go  down  and 
confound  their  language;"  this  relates  to  the  purpose 


16 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


of  God  to  go  down  and  confound  the  language  of 
the  builders  of  the  tower  of  Babel ;  at  the  time  of  his 
going  down  to  confound  their  language,  the  address  is 
made  in  the  same  form.  Xow,  had  there  not  been  a 
plurality  of  persons,  the  language  would  have  been  in 
the  singular,  will  go  down."  He  speaks  as  though 
there  were  a  consultation  held  by  difierent  persons,  with 
regard  to  the  accomplishment  of  that  work,  and  the  con- 
clusion expressed  is  in  these  words,  "  let  us  go  down, 
and  confound  their  language."  For  the  present,  I  design 
only  taking  these  authorities  from  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures ;  I  assume,  however,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Xew  Testament,  though 
not  expressed  in  these  words,  is,  nevertheless,  so  fully 
expressed,  that  no  other  just  conclusion  can  possibly  be 
arrived  at.  That  there  are  three  persons  constituting 
the  Godhead,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  the 
language  of  the  benediction  in  2d  Corinthians  xiii, 
14,  plainly  teaches.  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  be  with  you  all."  Here  three  persons  are 
spoken  of ;  if  there  was  but  one  pei-son  in  the  Godhead, 
why  employ  these  three  appellations,  all  of  which  have 
a  relation  to  the  belief  as  expressed  in  the  language 
employed.  The  grace  and  favor  of  Christ,  the  love  of 
God,  as  expressed  to  you  in  your  redemption  and  salva- 
tion, and  recovei-y  from  sin,  let  that  love  abide,  let  it 
ever  remain,  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by 
which  you  enjoy  the  evidence  of  your  acceptance  with 
God,  and  fellowship  with  the  Father;  and  with  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ,  as  the  efficient  agent  in  the  great  work  of 
human  salvation,  let  him  abide  in  his  sanctifying  in- 
fluence with  you  all.  With  regard,  then,  to  the  power 
of  Christ,  the  language  is  sufficiently  expressive  in  the 
Old  Testament,  as  well  as  in  the  New,  to  show  that  the 
equality  of  the  Father  was  the  received  doctrine  of  the 
church,  under  the  old  dispensation.  Psalms  ii,  7. 
"  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee this 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


17 


language  was  uniformly  admitted,  by  the  Jews,  to  be 
applicable  to  the  Messiah.  Isaiah  xlviii,  16. — "  And 
how  the  Lord  God  hath  sent  me,  and  his  spirit  thus 
saith  :  the  Lord,  the  Eedeemer,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel." 
Chap.  Ixi,  1. — "The  Spirit  of^the  Lord  is  upon  me,  for 
the  Lord  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings  unto 
the  meek,  and  hath  sent  me  to  bind  up  the  broken 
hearted — to  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captive,  and  the 
opening  of  the  prison  to  those  that  are  bound."  Here 
one  person  is  speaking  of  another,  whose  spirit  was 
resting  upon  him  ;  "The  spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me." 
This  language  corresponds  with  that  employed  by  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  quotation  selected  from  Isaiah, 
in  the  first  public  discourse  which  he  preached,  when  he 
quotes  these  words.  Here  one  divine  person  is  resting 
upon  another.  I  shall  now  proceed  to  notice  a  few  re- 
marks made  by  my  brother  on  the  character  of  God. 

"  Without  body  or  parts."  In  the  first  proposition, 
God  the  Father  is  without  body  or  parts.  This  is  the 
doctrine  of  Methodists,  as  received  and  understood  by 
them  ;  and  it  is  this  I  stand  here  to  defend  to-day.  As 
to  a  physical  body,  or  parts,  (for  this  has  been  alluded 
to,)  it  is  not  so  understood,  physically.  God  is  not,  as  a 
man,  possessed  of  body  and  parts.  The  term  "  parts  " 
is  here  used  in  this  restricted  sense,  and  not  to  the  ex- 
tent my  friend  would  give  it.  That  Moses,  on  one 
occasion,  saw  the  Lord  Jehovah  in  a  physical  form,  I 
presume  no  one  will  assert.  The  language  of  the  apostle 
is  this,  "No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  ;"  "  Lord, 
show  us  the  Father,  and  it  sufficeth  us."  Jesus  replied, 
"Have  I  been  so  long  a  time  with  you,  Philip,  and  hast 
thou  not  known  me  ?  "  The  Saviour  employs  different 
language  when  referring  to  himself;  he  uses  the  term, 
'"  known  me."  He  does  not  say  that  God  was  an  object 
of  sense,  because  he  did  not  possess  body,  or  parts,  as 
the  essential  being ;  but  he  refers  the  disciples  to  him- 
self. "  Have  I  been  so  long  a  time  with  you,  and  hast 
thou  not  known  me^  Philip ;  know  ye  now,  that  I  am  in 
2 


18 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITT. 


the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me.*'  Ton  have  here  be- 
fore you  the  express  image  of  the  Father's  glory,  and  of 
his  person,  the  only  manifestation  that  God  has  made  of 
himself,  you  have  in  me.  My  brother  then  proceeds  to 
make  a  quotation  from  Ji^ieson,  and  from  two  or  three 
other  authors,  and  then  assumes  that  there  is  a  God,  and 
that  there  ai*e  two  other  pei-sons,  and  these  are  brought 
in,  finally,  to  constitute  the  Godhead,  and,  in  further 
proof  of  this  doubtful  position,  he  says.  Dr.  Clarke  does 
not  admit  the  eternity  of  the  Son  of  God.  He  could  not 
believe  that  God  had^  begotten  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus 
Christ,  xsow,  I  occupy  precisely  the  position  that  Dr. 
Clarke  does,  and  find  myself  in  very  good  company.  I 
therefore  claim  that  the  word  which  was  in  the  beginning 
with  the  Father,  was  God ;  is  not  the  person  he  alluded 
to  as  begotten  of  the  Father  from  the  womb  of  the  Vir- 
gin Maiy,  but,  that  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  is  the  person 
alluded  to  as  begotten  ;  and  in  this  sense,  he  is  the  Son 
of  God ;  that  the  word,  or  logos^  which  was  in  the  be- 
ginning with  the  Father,  who  in  his  person  is  equal  in 
substance,  power,  and  glory,  and  eternity,  with  the 
Father. 

Mr.  Su^niEKBELL's  Second  address: 

My  friend  says,  that  he  agrees  with  Clarke  ;  but  Clarke 
says  the  Son  is  not  eternal,  and  the  creed  says  the  Son  is 
God,  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity.  Then  he  does 
not  believe  that  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity  is  eter- 
nal ?  He  says  the  word  is  eternal ;  but  the  word  is  not 
the  Son,  and  the  Son,  according  to  Dr.  Clarke,  is  not  God 
at  all.    He  had  better  let  Clarke  alone. 

He  says,  God  has  not  a  physical  body ;  but  his  creed 
says  that  he  has.  He  quotes  Philip,  who  says,  Show 
us  the  Father."  I  answer,  they  could  not  see  the  invis- 
ible Spirit ;  they  could  only  see  the  physical  body.  Was 
that  God  ?  Then  he  has  two  Gods,  one  with  a  body,  and 
one  without  a  body.  He  quotes,  "  I  am  in  the  Father, 
and  the  Father  in  me ;  "  but  Jesus  adds,  "  they  in  me, 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


19 


and  I  in  thee ;  that  they  may  all  be  perfect  in  one."  And 
this,  my  brother  quotes  to  prove  the  Trinity  !  He  next 
quotes,  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me  ; "  and 
here  he  has  one  divine  person  resting  upon  another  di- 
vine person.  Why  is  this  ?  He  says,  that  Christ  has  all 
power.  But,  Matthew  xxviii,  18,  Christ  says,  "All 
power  is  given  unto  me,  etc."  In  Psalms  ii,  7,  God  says 
to  the  Son,  "  Ask  of  me  and  I  will  give  thee  the  heathen 
for  thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth 
for  thy  possession."  He  quotes  Corinthians  xiii,  14, 
"  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  God 
the  Father,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  In 
answer  to  which,  I  refer  him  to  Rev.  i,  4,  "  Grace  be  unto 
you,  and  peace  from  him  which  is,  and  which  was,  and 
which  is  to  come,  and  from  the  seven  spirits  which  are 
before  his  throne."  Here  are  more  than  three  persons. 
Let  my  brother  explain  how  grace  is  invoked  from  seven 
spirits?  Genesis  xi,  7,  "  Let  us  go  down;"  but  I  can 
also  say,  let  us  do  this  and  that,  and  yet  I  am  no  Trinity. 
God,  doubtless,  "  spake  unto  his  Son,  by  whom  also  he 
made  the  worlds,"  Heb.  i,  1,  2  ;  but  my  brother  says  that 
the  Son  is  only  eighteen  hundred  years  old ;  but  Paul, 
who  is  better  authority,  says  that  God  made  the  world 
by  his  Son;  who  was  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and 
the  express  image  of  his  person.  My  brother  says,  the 
Trinity  may  be  clearly  inferred  from  the  Old  Testament ; 
but  he  does  not  find  the  place.  He  says,  the  agency  in- 
cludes a  plurality ;  but  I  answer,  God  could  not  he 
another  jperson^s  agent.  He  says,  that  in  Christ  dwells 
the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily ;  that  is,  the  embodi- 
ment of  the  Divine  nature,  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost 
dwells  in  Christ.  Thus  he  makes  the  three  persons  in 
the  Godhead  to  dwell  in  Christ;  instead  of  Christ  being 
one  person  in  the  Godhead  !  He  says,  that  "  Godhead  " 
is  mentioned  in  the  Bible ;  true,  it  is,  but  it  is  not  said 
that  three  persons  dwell  in  the  Godhead.  He  then  goes 
into  the  proof  of  the  Trinity,  without  answering  my  ar- 


20 


DISCUSSIOlSr  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


guments  on  the  creed.  Why  is  this  ?  He  admits  that  the 
word  Trinity  is  not  in  the  Bible,  but  claims  that  it  is  of 
ancient  origin  ;  but  this  ancient  origin  is  ancient  heathen 
origin  —  according  to  Clarke,  John  i,  1 .  My  brother  says, 
that  it  was  in  the  Christian  church  as  far  back  as  Arius, 
but  it  was  not  in  the  Nicene  creed.  Why  was  it  not  there  ? 
He  quotes  Webster ;  but  ISToah  Webster  was  a  Trinita- 
rian. Mosheim  says,  that  the  council  of  Constantinople 
(A.  D.,  381)  gave  the  finishing  touch  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  which  the  council  of  jS"ice  left  imjxirfect ! 
He  thinks  that  I  could  not  have  quoted  Luther  correctly. 
I  did  not  say  that  Luther  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 
nity, but  he  was  opposed  to  the  use  of  the  word  ;  and  I 
say,  he  renounced  more  than  my  brother  will.  Luther 
would  have  rejected  it,  but  he  retained  the  word  to  get  rid 
of  the  imputation  of  Arianisra,  which  he  knew  his  ene- 
mies would  be  ready  enough  to  charge  him  with  ;  just  as 
my  brother  gives  me  the  name  of  Arian  for  rejecting  the 
word  Trinity.  He  says,  that  he  wrote  me  a  letter  ;  this 
letter  I  received  on  Saturday  night,  before  starting  for 
this  place  on  Monday  morning ;  and,  consequently,  it  was 
received  too  late  to  send  an  answer  to  him ;  but  he  set  the 
time  himself  He  appeals  to  Mosheim  to  show  that  the 
Arians  persecuted  when  they  were  in  the  ascendant.  I 
deny  that  we  are  Arians  ;  though  I  admit  that  we  are 
generally  called  so  in  history.  I  have  not  said  that  v^e 
were  once  in  the  majority  ;  but  that  those  who  hold  our 
sentiments  were.  I  will  now  resume  my  argument,  and 
will,  in  the  first  place,  give  nineteen  proofs  that  the  Trin- 
itarians do  not  honor  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
equal  icith  the  Father  : 

First.  They  place  the  Father  first  in  the  Trinity,  and 
the  Son  second ! 

Second.  Their  system  allows  of  no  atonement  to  God 
the  Son ! 

Third.  They  have  no  mediator  between  them  and  God 
the  Son  ! 


DISCUSSION"  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


21 


Fourth.  The  most  favorable  view  of  their  theory 
makes  God  the  Son,  the  mediator  between  God  the  Father 
and  men ! 

Fifth.  Their  God  the  Son  is  not  self-existent,  biit  be- 
gotten before  all  worlds ;  {see  Athanasian  and  Ni-cene 
cre-eds.)  but  God  the  Father  is  self  existent  I 

Sixth.  Their  God  the  Son  prays ;  but  God  the  Father 
does  not ! 

SevejitJi.  They  say  that  their  God  the  Son  has  a  body, 
and  was  a  man  ;  views  derogatory  to  the  ti'ue  character 
of  God,  according  to  their  own  creed  or  constitution  ! 

Eighth.  They  say  that  their  God  the  Son  died  to  recon- 
cile his  Father;  thus  honoring  God  the  Father  by  the 
sacrifice  of  God  the  Son ! 

Ninth.  They  do  not  pray  to  the  Son  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  as  they  do  to  the  Father  in  the  Son's  name  ! 

Tenth.  The  Father  does  not  plead  with  the  Son,  as 
the  Son  does  with  the  Father  I 

Eleventh.  The  Son  does  not  exalt  the  Father ! 

Twelfth.  They  do  not  pray  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  mnch 
as  they  do  to  the  Father  ! 

Thirteenth.  They  do  not  pray  to  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the 
name  of  the  Son  ! 

Fourteenth.  They  do  not  offer  any  sacrifice  to  the 
Holy  Ghost ! 

Fifteenth.  They  do  not  have  any  mediator  between 
them  and  the  Holy  Ghost ! 

Sixteenth.  That  they  really  consider  the  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost  as  inferior  to  God,  or  not  really  God,  is  proved  by 
their  thanking  God  for  the  gift  of  his  Son,  and  praying 
to  God  to  give  his  Spirit ! 

Seventeenth.  Their  continued  effort  to  prove  the  Son 
equal  to  the  Father,  shows  that  the  Father  occupies  a 
superior  place  in  their  system,  and  they  acknowledge  the 
inferiority  of  the  Son,  even  in  the  efibrt  to  prove  him 
equal ! 

Eighteenth.  Jimeson  on  the  Tv:enty-five  Articles^  p. 
67,  says,  "  The  divine  nature  of  God^  and  of  the  iv:o 


22 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


OTHER  persons  tliat  compose  the  Trinity;"  language 
which  shows  a  consciousness  of  inferiority  in  the  author's 
mind. 

Nineteenth.  Clarke,  on  Hebrews,  chap,  i,  positively 
denies  the  eternal  sonship  of  Christ,  but  thinks  that  the 
son  of  Mary,  that  is,  the  man,  is  called  God ;  yet  posi- 
tively affirms  that  the  angel  does  not  give  the  appellation 
of  Son  to  the  divine  nature,  but  only  to  the  human.  But 
let  us  proceed  with  the  creed. 

Art.  n.     The  Son  who  is  the  very  and  eternal 

God,  of  one  substance  with  the  Father,  took  man's  nature, 
etc.,  so  that  two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  that  is  to  say, 
the  Godhead  and  manhood,  were  joined  together  in  one 
person,  never  to  be  divided,  whereof  is  one  Christ,  very 
God,  and  very  man,  who  truly  suffered,  was  crucified, 
dead  and  buried,  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us."  By  very 
God,  and  very  man,  they  mean  two  persons ;  for  very 
God,  is,  at  least,  one  person,  and  very  man,  at  least,  one 
other  person.  Jimeson,  p.  86,  says,  "  As  God,  he 
(Clirist)  existed  prior  to  his  human  nature,  and  did  not 
need  Immanity  as  a  means,  or  aid,  to  his  eternal  heingP 
This,  then,  is  one  eternal  heing  independent  of  human- 
ity, or  the  ^''very  inan!'^  Again,  p.  86  ;  As  man  he  was 
perfect^  and  might  have  existed  as  other  men^  without 
the  divine  nature.  This,  then,  is  another  being.  Here 
are  two  persons,  two  whole  beings,  that  could  exist  inde- 
pendently of  each  other,  one  as  God,  the  other  as  other 
men.  And  my  brother  said  that  the  person  who  was 
with  God,  in  the  beginning,  was  not  the  person  begotten 
of  the  Virgin.  This,  then,  is  what  they  mean,  when  they 
say,  that  he  has  two  natures,  that  he  took  again  his  body 
with  all  things  pertaining  to  man's  nature.  They  have 
two  beings,  and  one  person  not  the  other  person :  two  who 
Jimeson  says,  could  have  existed  independent  of  each 
other;  and  my  brother  says,  that  he  stands  here  to  defend 
Jimeson.  Two  persons ;  but  neither  of  them  the  Son 
of  God.  Of  these  two  beings,  called  very  God,  and  very 
man,  one  is  God,  and  the  other  they  call  a  creature,  and 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  2S 

refuse  to  -worship.  The  one  that  was  seen,  suffered, 
•was  dead,  and  now  pleads  for  them,  they  refuse  to 
-worship:  but  -worship  the  Divine  nature  that  neither 
suffered  or  died  for  them;  but  the  creed  makes  both 
dead.  Yery  God  and  very  man,  -svho  truly  suflered,  -«'a3 
dead.  So  the  hymn  says,  "  When  God^  the  mighty 
maJcer^  diedP 

Difficulties  start  up  here.  1.  How  they  could  kill  a 
God  -without  body  or  parts  ;  or,  2.  Whether  this  God 
that  died  was  some  other  God  beside  the  God  that  had 
DO  body  or  parts.  And  so  they  make  him  inferior  to 
the  supreme  God,  by  their  own  arguments  on  the  mate- 
riality of  God.  Jimesou  says,  God  cannot  have  a 
body  or  parts  composed  of  material  substance,  for  this 
-would  exclude  him  from  all  places  occupied  by  other 
material  bodies.'' — "  God  must  be  -^'ithout  body  or  parts, 
for  a  body  can  not  be  present  in  more  than  one  place  at 
the  same  time,"  etc.,  p.  40.  3.  At  all  events,  this 
proves  that  they  think  that  Christ,  -who  had  a  body,  is 
inferior  to  the  God,  -^vho  is  -without  body.  This  they  also 
admit,  by  saying,  that  this  God  and  man  died  to  recon- 
cile his  Father  to  us — of  coui*se,  the  less  must  die  to 
reconcile  the  greater.  It  is  thus  the  creed  degrades  the 
Sod  of  God.  4.  The  scorn  with  which  they  everywhere 
speak  of  the  materiality  of  God,  or  the  idea  of  God  having 
a  body,  shows  that  they  do  not  really  believe  that  the 
Son,  who  has  a  body,  is  their  Supreme  God.  5.  So  far 
from  blaming  them  for  denying  the  doctrine  of  their 
"very  man"  being  the  invisible  God,  without  body  or 
parts,  I  praise  them  for  it,  and  hope  that  they  will  soon 
embrace  the  whole  truth.  6.  But  I  will  not  dwell  on 
the  creed,  but  sum  up  some  of  its  contradictions,  in  a 
few  brief  sentences.    It  says,  first : 

Art.  I.  "  There  is  but  one  living  and  ti'ue  God,  with- 
out body  or  parts." 

Illustration  \.  "  Without  body."  Yet,  "  Christ,  who 
is  the  very  aud  eteroal  God," — "  did  rise  again  from 
the  dead,  and  took  again  his  body." 


24 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


111.  2.  Without  parts."  Yet,  "  In  unity  of  this  God- 
head there  are  three  persons,  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost." 

3.  "  Three  persons  of  one  substance,  power,  and 
eternity ;  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Yet  Clarke  says,  that  the  angel  does  not  give  the  appel- 
lation of  Son  of  God  to  the  divine  nature  of  Christ. 
Clarke,  Luke  i,  35.  So  that  the  second  person  is  not 
divine. 

III.  4.  "  Of  the  same  eternity."  Father  and  Son 
both  of  the  same  eternity.  Clarke  says,  "  Father  im- 
plies, in  reference  to  Son,  precedency  in  time,  if  not  in 
nature  too."    Clarke,  Luke  i,  35. 

111.  5.  "Of  one  substance."  And  the  Son  has  two 
whole  and  perfect  natures,  Godhead,  and  manhood, 
body  and  human  soul :  yet  all  three  are  of  one  substance. 

111.  6.  "  Of  one  substance."  Yet  the  supreme  Being, 
the  living  God,  (is)  independent  of  matter,  either  as 
part  of  himself,  or,"  etc.  "  Material  substances  would 
exclude  him  from  all  places  occupied  by  other  material." 
Jimeson,  p.  40. 

"Without  body."  Yet  God  the  Son  has  a  material 
body. 

111.  7.  "  Godhead  and  manhood  were  joined  together 
never  to  be  divided,  whereof  is  one  Christ,  very  God, 
and  ver}^  man,  who  truly  suffered,  was  crucified,  dead, 
and  buried,  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us."  So  that  the 
very  God  was  dead  and  buried  :  the  living  and  true  God 
was  dead ! 

III.  8.  "  Never  to  be  divided."  So  that  the  only  God 
of  the  universe  was  united  with  veiy  man  in  death  three 
days. 

III.  9.  "  But  one  living  and  true  God ;"  yet  he,  united 
to  very  man,  died  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us. 

III.  10.  "  To  reconcile  his  Father."  That  is,  the  very 
God  died  to  reconcile  the  very  God's  Father — who  was 
dead,  or  some  other  God,  called  the  very  God's  Father — 
to  men. 

III.  IL  "  Christ  did  truly  rise  again  from  the  dead, 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITT. 


2$ 


and  took  aofain  his  body."  So  that  it  was  not  the  body 
of  Christ  alone,  that  was  dead,  but  the  one  Christ,  very 
God,  and  very  man,  that  took  again  his  body. 

12.  Took  again  his  body,  with  all  things  per- 
taining to  man's  natm-e."  That  is,  the  Christ  who  first 
arose  irom  the  dead,  then  took  again  his  body,  with  all 
things  pertaining  to  man's  nature.  So  that,  beside  the 
Christ  that  rose  again  from  the  dead,  there  was  a  body 
with  all  things  pertaining  to  man's  nature. 

111.  13.  The  Bible  says,  that  the  fullness  of  the  God- 
head dwelt  in  Christ :  but  the  Discipline  contradicts  it, 
by  saying,  that  the  three  persons,  each  of  whom  is  God, 
and  one  very  man,  four  real  persons,  are  all  in  the  God- 
head, instead  of  the  Godhead  being  in  Christ. 

I  will  now  commence  an  argument  to  show  that  Trinita- 
rians difier  among  themselves,  as  much  as  they  do  with  iis. 

1.  Clarke,  Luke  i,  35,  says,  that  the  angel  does  not 
give  the  appellation.  Son  of  God,  to  the  divine  nature — 
that  the  divine  nature  could  not  be  born  of  the  Virgin, 
but  tliat  the"  human  nature  was  born. 

2.  The  angel,  however,  contradicts  Clarke,  saying,  that 
"  unto  you  is  born  this  day,  a  Saviour,  which  is  Christ 
the  Lord." 

3.  But  Clarke  says,  that  ''two  natures  (persons)  must 
ever  be  distinguished  in  Christ ;  the  human  nature,  in 
reference  to  which  he  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  mferiov  to 
him;  and  the  divine  nature,  which  was  from  eternity,  and 
equal  to  God  ;  "  thus  ^plainly  denying  the  equality  of 
the  Son  of  God. 

4.  Mr.  Brown,  (of  East  Genesse  Con.,  K.  Y.,  book 
sold  at  M.  E.  Book  Concern,  Cin.,)  says,  "  True,  God 
has  no  equal — it  means  equal  with  the  Father,"  pp.  18 
and  29.  So  that  the  Father  is  not  as  great  as  God^  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Brown. 

5.  Mr.  Mattison,  of  JST.  Y.  city  M.  E.  Ch.,  on  Ti'inity, 
p.  3,  says,  '*  To  deny  the  eternity  of  the  Son,  is  to  deny 
the  eternity  of  the  leather  ;  one  relation  cm  be  no  older 
than  the  other." 

3 


26 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


6.  Clarke,  Luke  i,  35,  says,  "  Is  there  any  part  of 
Scripture  that  plainly  says  that  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus 
is  the  Son  of  God?" 

7.  Matt.,  p.  141,  "  The  Christian  church  has  always 
believed  that  the  divine  Father  had  a  divine  Son,  co- 
equal. 

8.  Clarke,  Luke  i,  35,  "  If  Christ  be  the  Son  of  God, 
as  to  his  divine  nature,  then  the  Father  is  of  necessity 
prior,  consequently,  superior  to  him." 

9.  Brown  says,  "  He  is  the  Son  of  God  by  his  miracu- 
lous conception." 

10.  Wood,  Bib.  Diet.,  art.  Christ,  says,  "To  pretend 
that  he  is  called  the  proper,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God, 
because  of  his  miraculous  conception,  is  not  only  ground- 
less and  absurd,  but  even  blasphemous,"  p.  428.  So  that 
one-half  of  Trinitarians  call  the  other  half  blasphemers — 
even  Clarke  and  Barnes. 

11.  "  The  doctrine  of  the  eternal  sonship  of  Christ,  is, 
in  my  opinion,  anti-scriptural,  and  highly  dangerous," 
sa^^s  Clarke. 

12.  Bp.  Watson,  p.  30,  (543,)  "  The  Creator  was  the 
Son  of  God  before  he  was  sent  into  the  world." 

13.  Clarke  says,  "  If  Christ  be  the  Son  of  God,  as  to 
his  divine  nature,  then  he  cannot  be  eternal,  for  Son  im- 
plies a  father^  and  the  Father  is  of  necessity  prior,  and 
consequently  superior." — Luke  i,  35. 

14.  Mattison,  p.  74,  "Son  of  God  implies  absolute 
divinity,  and  is  no  proof  of  inferiority." 

15.  "If,"  says  Clarke,  "the  divine  nature  were  begot- 
ten of  the  Father,  then  it  must  be  in  time ;  this  destroys 
the  eternity  of  our  blessed  Lord,  and  robs  him  at  once  of 
his  Godhead." 

Clarke  positively  denies  that  the  So7i  is  either  divine 
or  eternal ;  thus  destroying  the  second  person  in.  the 
Trinity.  Hence,  they  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  the  human  nature,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and 
Barnes  agrees  with  him.    See  Eom.  i,  and  Heb.  i. 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITY. 


27 


Mattison,  p.  124,  says,  "  The  Son  is  both  a  child  born, 
and  the  mighty  God.*' 

Mattison,  p.  21.  says,  To  say  that  the  Son  is  the  ever- 
lasting Father^  or  that  the  mighty  God  was  born,  is  little 
less  than  blasphemy.*' 

Watson,  p.  30,  (note)  refers  to  Micah  v,  12,  to  prove  a 
twofold  birth:  and  p.  32,  says,  *'  he  was  iDefore  all  crea- 
ted things  by  generation,  not  by  creation  thus  plainly 
contradicting  Clarke — and  p.  41, that  the  blood  of  Christ 
was  the  blood  of  God." 

Mattison,  p.  39,  says,  Trinitarians  do  not  hold  to  the 
sufl'erings  or  death  of  divinitv^ ;  *'  but  contradicts  himself, 
saying,  p.  12S,  ''The  Word,  the  second  person  in  Trin- 
itv — txjcame  a  sacrifice  for  sin."  As  per  hymn,  '*  When 
God,  the  mighty  Maker,  died." 

Watson,  p.  30,  quotes  Prov.  xxx,  4,  and  says,  that  "it 
expresses  clearly  that  God  had  a  Son,  and  makes  no  ref- 
erence to  his  incarnation." 

Thus  some  contend  for  the  eternity  of  the  Son,  in  order 
to  save  the  Trinity ;  but  others  think  that  there  is  no 
Son  :  so  the 

Five  Hundred  Sketches  and  Skeletons  of  Sermons, 
Heb.  vii,  11,  p.  498,  says  of  Christ,  that  1st.  as  divine, 
he  had  no  Father,  but  is  self-existent ;  and,  2d,  as  human, 
he  had  no  Father  ;  *'  so  that  he  is  no  Son  at  all,  accord- 
ing to  Tnnitananimi. 

Mb.  Flood's  Second  reply: 

I  was  pleased  to  see  a  disposition,  on  the  part  of  my 
brother  Summerbell,  to  approach  this  subject  in  his 
second  speech,  but  I  regretted  to  see  a  tendency  to  turn 
from  it  at  the  close.  In  regard  to  what  certain  authoi-s 
say  respecting  Luther,  that  he  was  undecided,  and  that 
he  yielded  to  Melancthon,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  I  shall  only  be  doing  simple  justice  to  that  great 
and  good  divine — to  whom,  under  God,  both  my  brother 
and  myself,  and  all  Protestant  Christians  are  indebted  for 
our  present  freedom  of  inquiry — by  stating  that  at  no 


28 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


time  was  his  theology  possessed  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  and  that  his  views,  in  any  material  sense,  differed 
from  those  commonly  received  by  Trinitarians,  I  unques- 
tionably deny  ;  but  tiiat  he  yielded  to  some  early  reform- 
ers, in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  this  doctrine  should 
be  presented,  may  be  true ;  for,  on  the  one  liand,  was 
Melancthon,  with  his  lion-like  spirit,  but  withal,  pos- 
sessed of  much  kindness  and  gentleness,  which  he  exerted 
to  keep  within  bounds,  and  to  avoid  the  extravagance 
that  zeal  for  the  truth  migiit  have  led  them  into;  on  the 
other  was  Luther,  witii  his  good  sense  and  tenacity  for 
the  truth,  yet  willing  to  yield  in  minor  points,  to  avoid 
strife  and  contention ;  and  this  may  be  the  case  in  this 
particular  instance;  my  opponent  contends  they  had  no 
mediator  between  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  am 
sorry  to  say  my  brother  has  allowed  himself  to  make 
these  statements  without  being  correctly  informed.  It  is 
very  evident  that  there  is  but  one  God  in  the  universe — 
one  living  and  true  God,  everlasting — and  that  in  the 
unity  of  this  Godhead,  there  are  three  persons  of  equal 
substance,  glory,  and  eternity,  the  Father,  Word,  or  Lo- 
gos, and  Holy  Spirit;  so  tiuit  these  three  constitute  the 
one  living  and  true  God,  whom  we  worship,  and  who  is 
the  author  of  the  universe;  and  if  you  i-emove  from  the 
Goihead  tije  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  or  Logos, 
that  was  in  the  beginning  with  the  Father,"you  at  once 
enter  upon  the  doctrine  of  atheism ;  you  annihilate  Jeho- 
vah ;  you  abolish  the  God  of  the  Bible ;  you  put  him 
out  of  existence,  if  you  remove  from  the  Godhead  the 
third  person,  which  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  sent  forth  from 
tl)e  Father,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  You  will 
likewise  abolish  the  idea  of  the  existence  of  one  living 
and  true  God.  God  the  Spirit,  we  understand  to  be 
that  person,  or  his  agent,  employed  in  the  great  work  of 
human  salvation,  in  awakening  and  convincing,  in  the 
conversion,  in  the  sauctitication,  fitting  and  qualifying 
tiie  human  soul,  while  a  tenant  of  an  eailhly  tabernacle, 
for  an  inheritance  immortal  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 


PISCTJSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


29 


I  could  not  better  illustrate  my  views  of  tlie  office  of  the 
Hoiv  Spirit,  as  the  supreme  ai2;ent,  in  the  sacred  work 
and  economy  of  human  salvation,  than  by  comparing  it 
to  the  idea  of  a  vast  pendulum,  fastened  to  the  throne 
of  the  Eternal,  and  reaching,  in  its  vibrations,  through 
heaven  and  earth,  down  to  hell.  In  heaven,  causing  the 
saints  and  angels  to  rejoice — filling  all  the  angelic  world 
with  unutterable  delight.  In  earth,  warning  its  inhabit- 
ants of  unrighteousness  and  of  judgment  to  come ;  and 
in  hell^  executing  the  just  penalties  of  a  violated  law, 
upon  the  hopeless  inhabitants  of  that  world  of  woe.  Hence 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  these  three,  I  assume,  are 
one  God — one  living  and  true  God — and  that  the  em- 
bodiment of  these  three  persons  of  equal  substance, 
power,  glory,  and  eternity,  is  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ,  who  took  upon  him,  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  a  human  body,  in  union  with  the  divine  nature ; 
and  in  this  association  two  separate  and  distinct  natures 
were  merged  in  one  person,  to  wit:  the  Godhead,  and 
the  humanity;  and  this  union  of  two  natures,  through- 
out the  boundless  future,  was  never  to  be  separated. 
That  there  was,  however,  a  separation  between  the  human 
and  the  divine  natures,  during  the  limited  period  of  three 
days  and  three  nights,  which  transpired  from  the  cruci- 
fixion to  the  resurrection,  is  universally  admitted  by  the 
Trinitarian.  This  was  signified  when  Christ,  amidst 
the  agonies  of  the  cross,  cried,  "My  God!  my  God! 
why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?"  We  hold,  that  upon  the 
altar  the  divine  nature  was  sacred  and  perfect  human 
nature,  uncontaminated  by  sin.  We  maintain  both  a 
passive  and  active  obedience  to  the  divine  law,  in  its 
moral  and  perceptive  parts,  so  that  guile  was  not  found 
in  his  mouth,  but  lamb-like  innocence,  as  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  from  the  cradle  to  the  cj'oss  ;  for  it  becomes  him 
to  make  the  captain  of  our  salvation  perfect  through  suf- 
fering," and  that  human  nature,  sanctified  by  a  ceaseless, 
unwavering,  and  perfect  obedience  to  the  divine  law,  was 
T^pable  of  making  a  suitable  atonement  for  the  sins  of 


30  DISCUSSION  ox  THE  TRINITY. 

human  nature.  Those  who  were  passive  in  the  fall, 
should  be  passive  in  the  reception  of  Christ's  death,  that 
those  who  were  actually  guilty,  as  transgressors  of  the 
divine  law,  should  be  entitled  to  hope  for  salvation,  upon 
the  ground  of  fliith,  in  the  atonement  Jesus  Christ  had 
made  for  sins  that  were  past,  ^'  tiirough  the  forbearance 
of  God,"  and  of  a  future  salvation,  by  a  life  wholly  con- 
formed to  the  sacred  requirements  of  the  divine  law. 
I  think  I  have  been  sufficiently  clear  both  in  stating,  and 
in  explaining,  the  position  occupied  by  Trinitarians,  with 
regard  to  the  character  of  God ;  the  term  Son,  in  regard 
to  Jesus  Christ,  in  connection  with  his  human  and  divine 
nature,  we  hold  that  this  nature  was  united  and  subsisted 
in  one  person;  and  this,  I  tliink,  may  be  made  clear  from 
the  Word  of  God,  in  the  course  of  this  investigation. 
My  brother  says,  we  make  a  God  of  Jesus  Christ,  though 
we  do  not  exalt  the  character  of  Christ  as  highly  as  do 
the  advocates  of  the  position  he  occupies.  He  says  his 
views  are  not  Arian,  and  intimated  that  they  were  not 
Socinian ;  and  I  am  sure,  that  if  my  brother  knows,  he 
will  favor  us  with  the  name  of  his  peculiar  views  upon 
this  subject.  I  should  like  if  he  would  name  them. 
Mr.  Summerbcll. — Christian. 

Mr.  Flood. — A  very  latitudinarian  expression,  in- 
deed. How  many  the  beliefs,  and  even  practices,  that 
have  been  baptized  into  the  sacred  name  of  Christian  !  It 
would  seem  as  if  he  was  at  a  loss  to  determine  what  were 
the  peculiar  views  he  is  to  advance,  so  he  sees  proper  to 
baptize  the  child,  and  call  it  by  the  general  name  of 
Christian.  I  might  respond  in  the  same  way  to  the 
question:  What  do  you  call  your  views  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  It  would  seem  very  in- 
definite to  say,  Well,  I  call  them  Christian  views.  Cer- 
tainly I  do.  I  presume  no  one  would  suspect  me  of 
anything  else.  They  would  be  Christian  views,"  and 
entertained  by  Christians  in  all  sections  of  the  religious 
world.  I  maintain  the  position  that  Jesus  Christ  is  equal 
in  power,  majesty  and  glory,  with  God  the  Father ;  and* 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


81 


that  I  may  definitely  understand  our  mutual  positions,  I 
wish  my  brother,  who  is  in  the  affirmative,  to  clearly  define 
to  me  what  ho  believes  Christ  to  be ;  he  has  been  telling  us 
what  he  is — I  will  note  it  down,  and  then  I  shall  be  fully 
prepared  to  proceed  in  the  investigation  of  this  subject. 
He  assures  the  congregation  that  the  views  which  I 
represent  are  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the  Word  of 
God  ;  but  the  views  he  advances,  in  regard  to  the  charac- 
ter of  Christ,  makes  him  inferior  to  the  Father.  And 
are  such  views,  I  would  ask,  scriptural  ?  He  quotes 
Clarke  again;  we  shall  not  difier  on  this;  he  thinks  the 
man,  Christ  Jesus,  was  a  man.  Does  not  this  seem  an 
exception  to  the  passage  ?  Jesus  is  said  to  be  the  son  of 
David,  and  the  son  of  Abraham.  Jesus  Christ  is  here 
allowed  to  be  the  son  of  two  men,  living  at  quite  remote 
lx?riods  from  each  other.  Matthew  viii,  20,  The  foxes 
have  holes,  and  the  biixls  of  the  air  have  nests,  but  the  Son 
of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head."  This  looks  very 
much  as  though  he  professed  to  be  a  man,  inasmuch  as 
every  son  partakes  of  the  essential  characteristics  and  qual- 
ities of  his  father;  for  it  is  an  acknowledged  principle,  in 
philosophy,  that  like  begets  like.  "Jesus  increased  in 
wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  man." 
Here  we  have  an  evidence  of  regular  developed  physical 
powers  and  capabilities.  John  i,  14,  "And  the  Word 
was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his 
glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father, 
full  of  grace  and  tnith."  Here  the  two  natures  are  re- 
ferred to  in  connection ;  first,  "  he  was  made  flesh  and 
dwelt  among  us."  What  was  his  flesh  ?  was  it  human 
flesh  ?  we  assume  it  was.  The  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ  was 
the  flesh  of  a  human  being ;  he  was  a  man.  1  Timothy, 
ii,  5,  "For  there  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between 
God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."  I  suppose  that 
Dr.  Clarke  did  not  commit  any  very  serious  blunder 
in  theology,  when  he  asserted  that  Jesus  Christ,  with 
regard  to  the  human  nature,  was  a  human  being.  I  think 
so.    Hebrews  ii,  14,  "  Forasmuch  then  as  the  children 


S2 


DISCUSSION  o^r  the  trinity. 


are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also,  himself,  like- 
wise took  part  of  the  same,  that  through  death  he  might 
destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the 
Devi!,  aud  deliver  theai,  who,  through  fear  of  death, 
were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage ;  for,  verily,  he 
took  Dot  ou  liim  the  nature  of  angels,  but  he  took  on  him 
the  seed  of  Abraham.  "Wherefore,  in  all  things  it  be- 
hooved him  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he 
might  be  a  merciful  High  Priest  in  things  pertaining  to 
God,  to  make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people ; 
for  in  that  he  liimself  hath  sufi'ered,  being  tempted,  he 
is  able  to  succour  them  that  are  tempted."  It  looks  to 
me  very  much  as  if  he  possessed  a  human  nature,  if  he 
took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels  but  the  seed  of 
Abraham.  Here  is  a  person  represented  as  taking  upon 
himself  something  else — united  with  him  something  else; 
and,  hence,  this  is  the  union  of  the  human  with  the 
divine  nature.  Jesus  Christ,  who  in  substance,  power, 
gloiy  and  eternity,  is  equal  to  the  Father.  He  took  not 
upon  him  the  nature  of  angels,  but  the  seed  of  Abraham. 
Hebrews  iv,  15,  ''We  have  a  great  High-Friest  that  is 
passed  into  the  Heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  us 
hold  fast  our  profession;  for  we  have  not  an  high-priest 
which  cannot  be  touched  with  a  feeling  of  our  inhrmi ties, 
but  was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without 
sin."  Here  an  allusion  is  made  to  kindred  sympathies, 
existing  between  Christ  and  those  with  whom  he  was 
associated  by  blood.  He  was  capable  of  sympathizing 
with  them,  for  he  himself  possessed  a  similar  nature  to 
theirs.  John  iv,  3,  "  Every  spirit  that  confesseth  not 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God." 
Now  he  that  denies  this  position,  with  regard  to  the 
physical  nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  he  assumed  while 
here,  God  coming  in  the  flesh,  as  the  son  of  David  and 
the  son  of  Abraham — every  spirit  that  denieth  this 
great  truth,  is  not  of  God,  but  must  stand  rebuked  as 
opposed  to  the  teaching  of  revelation.  I  complain  of 
this,  my  brother :  of  the  reference  made  by  you  in  regard 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


83 


to  your  view  of  the  character  of  our  Saviour.  But  thea 
he  inquires,  with  regard  to  the  power  exercised  by  Jesus 
Christ,  who  gave  this  power  ?  lie  inquires,  did  the 
Father  give  it  to  him  ?  1  answer  in  the  negative.  All 
power  rests  with  God;  all  power  is  invested  in  God  tlie 
Father,  God  the  Son,  or  Word,  or  Logos,  and  God  the 
Holy  Spirit.  All  power  equally  rests  in  the  three  per- 
sons of  the  Godhead.  This  language  is  represented  as 
conferring  upon  Christ,  for  specinc  objects,  with  a  view 
to  the  redemption  of  human  nature;  and,  hence,  he  uses 
language  which  would  be  likely  to  be  understood.  All 
power  is  given  into  my  hands,  in  heaven  and  upon  earth. 
Notice  the  phraseology.  Shall  1  use  that  power  in 
violation  of  the  counsel  of  Heaven,  and  the  council  of 
Jehovah  ?  No  1  I,  myself,  stand  intimately  associated 
in  that  council.  There  are  three  persons  in  the  God- 
head ;  upon  me,  as  a  Mediator,  now  rests  the  great  work 
of  accomplishing  redemption  for  the  human  race  ;  and,  in 
order  to  its  accomplishment,  unlimited  power  must  be 
called  into  requisition ;  all  power  is  necessary  now,  and 
the  highest  power  we  can  conceive  of,  is  that  of  giving 
life  to  the  dead.  We  cannot  conceive  of  greater  power 
than  producing  something  out  of  nothing,  and  giving 
life  where  it  did  not  before  exist.  This  power  Christ 
declared  he  possessed  in  the  most  positive  sense.  But 
with  regai'd  to  the  right  to  exist,  and  the  power  to  exist ; 
he  has  it  equal  to  the  Father,  in  himself  He  hath  given 
unto  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself."  Hence,  Christ 
assumes  that  he  possessed  life,  and  that  he  gives  life. 
First,  he  possessed  power  to  restore  life  to  those  who 
were  literally  dead,  as  in  the  case  of  the  restoration  of 
the  son  of  the  widow  of  ISTain,  who  was  being  borne 
upon  the  bier  to  the  place  of  interment.  The  Saviour 
had  compassion  for  the  weeping  widow,  and,  to  demon- 
strate his"  almighty  power  and  Godhead,  commanded 
them  to  stop,  and  called  to  life  again  the  young  man 
that  was  already  dead  upon  his  bier.  Again,  in  the 
restoration  of  Lazarus,  who  was  raised  to  life  four  days 


34 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


after  he  died,  under  circumstances  peculiarly  trying. 
Here  was  the  house  occupied  by  its  three  inmates,  where 
kindness  and  hospitality  toward  their  Saviour  had  never 
been  wanted.  Here  Martha  had  served  him  ;  here  Mary 
had  sat  at  his  feet  and  wept,  washing  his  feet  with  her 
tears,  and  wiping  them  with  the  hairs  of  her  head ;  and 
here  death  had  entered  and  removed  their  chief  support. 
And  when  he  was  yet  absent  from  the  place,  Jesus  said 
to  his  disciples — and  who  but  a  God  would  have  been 
able  to  discover  it — "  Our  brother  Lazarus  sleepeth." 
But  do  you  recollect  the  language  in  which  he  ap- 
proached the  sepulcher  ?  Haclst  thou  been  here,  ex- 
claimed the  weeping  sister,  our  brother  had  not  died. 
Here  was  faith  in  these  primitive  Christians ;  she  believed 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "  To  whom  shall  we  go,  thou 
hast  the  words  of  eternal  life.  If  thou  hadst  been  here 
our  brother  had  not  died."  Such  was  the  sympathy  for 
those  true  Christians,  that  "Jesus  wept."  Then,  as  he 
approached  the  grave's  mouth,  preparations  were  made, 
and  with  a  loud  voice  he  called  the  sleeping  man  to  life 
again,  and  forthwith  he  was  restored  to  his  friends.  I 
ask,  what  power,  but  the  power  of  Jehovah,  has  control 
over  the  condition  of  the  dead,  to  give  life  where  it  was 
extinct  ?  Christ  exercised  this  power.  He  said,  "  I  say 
unto  thee,  arise  1  " 

Me.  Summi:ebell's  Third  address : 

I  will  just  say,  that  I  received  my  brother's  letter,  noti- 
fying me  of  the  debate,  late  last  Saturday  evening — too 
late  for  him  to  have  received  a  reply  before  starting  here, 
or  I  should  have  sent  him  one.  My  brother  closed  with 
a  good  speech,  on  the  glory  and  power  of  Christ.  We 
believe  in  his  glory ;  we  trust  in  his  power ;  but  all  his 
power  was  given  to  him.  Jesus  said,  John  v,  20,  "  I 
can  of  myself  do  nothing.  The  Father  that  dwelleth  in 
me,  he  doeth  the  works."  At  the  grave  of  Lazarus  he 
prayed  and  thanked  the  Father  for  hearing  him.  My 
opponent  next  says,  that  Mary  acknowledged  that  he  was 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TEINITY. 


35 


God ;  for  she  said,  Lord,  if  thou  hadst  been  here,  my  bro- 
ther had  not  died.  Mary  knew  that  he  was  not  God,  for 
God  icas  there ;  and  Martha  said,  that  she  knew  that  if 
he  would  pray  unto  God,  God  would  grant  him  whatever 
he  desired.  My  brotlier  says,  that  if  God  gave  him  all 
power,  tliat  this  would  make  him  equal  with  God.  But 
I  cannot  see  how  this  would  make  him  equal  with  him 
from  whom  he  received  all  power.  Tlie  sun  imparts  its 
light  to  the  moon;  but  that  does  not  "make  the  moon 
equal  to  the  sun.  My  brother  says,  that  "  received  all 
power,"  means,  that  for  the  work  of  redemption  he 
needed  all  the  combined  power  of  the  three  persons,  and 
that  nothing  short  of  this  would  answer.  Does  he  mean 
that  all  three  combined,  have  more  power  than  one  ? 

Trinitarians  have  to  contend  that  he  was  God,  and  from 
all  eternity  possessed  all  power.  How  could  the  supreme 
God  receive  all  power  ?  If  he  needed  all  the  power  of 
the  three,  then  the  power  of  one  was  finite ;  but  three 
finites  could  not  make  one  Infinite.  Just  as  three  times 
one  thousand  miles  do  not  make  an  infinite  distance. 

Here  our  brother  loses  his  argument ;  he  is  my  bro- 
ther, and  I  do  not  want  him  to  fall  into  such  difficulties. 
He  quotes  John,  "  He  that  denieth  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
come  in  the  flesh,  is  anti-Christ."  But  I  believe  that 
Jesus  Christ  came  in  the  flesh,  as  well  as  my  brother  ; 
even  more.  I  believe  Jesus'  words,  John  vi,  38,  "I  came 
down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the  will 
of  him  that  sent  me."  It  was  not  God  that  came  down 
from  heaven — not  to  do  his  own  will,  but  the  will  of  some 
one  else  who  sent  HIM.  Neither  was  it  his  very  man, 
for  human  nature  did  not  exist  in  heaven  before  it  did  on 
earth.  My  brother's  creed  says,  that  God  has  no  body ; 
but  if  Jesus  be  his  God,  his  God  has  a  body,  and  so  his 
cr(^d  is  false.  Jesus  was  a  partaker  of  flesh  and  blood, 
and  was  tempted  in  all  points  as  we  are ;  but  did  God 
take  flesh  and  blood  ?  Jesus  says,  "a  body  hast  thou  pre- 
pared me."  Now  if  this  was  not  God  who  took  this  body, 
who  was  it  ?  He  thinks  that  Jesus  was  very  man  because 


86 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


he  was  the  son  of  David  and  Abraham ;  bat  Eom.  i,  1, 
says.  That  he  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David  accordinoj  to 
the  flesh ;  biit  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  according 
to  the  spirit  of  holiness."  lie  also  quoted  Matt,  viii,  20, 
"  Ttie  son  of  man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head." 
Many  others  have  been  destitute  of  a  place  to  lay  their 
head  -,  but  this  does  not  prove  them  God  ;  nor  will  Jesus 
thus  appearing  among  us  prove  him  merely  man.  If  he 
reads  Genesis  he  will  find  three  MEX  who  appeared  to 
Abraham,  as  he  sat  in  the  tent  door,  in  the  plains  of 
Mamre,  whose  feet  were  washed,  and  for  whom  Abi'aham 
prepared  a  kid,  bread,  etc.;  yet  Abraham  worshiped,  or 
made  obeisance  unto  them.  To  one  of  them  he  prayed, 
calling  him  Jehovah  ;  so  they  are  called  Jehovah,  angels 
and  men.  My  brother  should  show  the  necessary  con- 
nection of  his  text  with  his  argument.  Nothing  comes 
of  quoting  a  great  number  of  texts.  The  question  is,  Is 
the  Trinity  in  the  texts  ?  Were  it  in  one  it  would'  an- 
swer. Kow  that  Jesus  had  not  where  to  lay  his  head, 
does  not  prove  the  Trinity. 

My  brother  says,  that  as  he  was  the  son  of  David,  he 
must  have  partaken  of  the  nature  of  his  father.  But 
God  was  his  father.  Even  that  which  my  brother  calls 
very  man,  had  no  earthly  father  ;  but  God  was  its  father. 
Then,  on  my  brother's  own  showing,  he  being  the  Son 
of  God,  would  partake  of  God,  and  be  divine. 

He  wanted  me  to  name  the  party  at  the  Kicene  council, 
which  was  neither  Arian  nor  Trinitarian.  I  said  Chris- 
tian.   I  will-read  him  a  little  from  Keander,  Yol.  ii,  372 : 

"  To  form  a  correct  notion  of  the  order  of  business  at 
this  council,  we  must,  in  the  first  place,  present  clearly 
before  our  minds,  the  relation  of  the  parties  who  were 
present.  Tliose  who  agreed  entirely  with  the  doctrine  of 
Arius,  which  was  but  a  small  party  (only  seventeen 
bishops,  p.  377.)  then  the  advocates  of  the  Ilomoousfon 
(those  now  counted  Trinitarians),  who,  likewise,  in  the 
Eastern  church,  composed  but  a  comparatively  small 
party,"  (be  it  remembered  that  the  greater  part  of  the 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


8T 


council  were  orientals,  {.  e.  of  the  Eastern  Church),  "  and 

finally  those  who  occupied  the  middle  ground  between 
the  two  parties,  and  entertained  views  similar  to  those  of 
Eusebiiis,  of  Cesarea."  This,  my  brother,  was  that  other 
party  whom  I  called  Christians^  but  whom  Neander,  ii, 
374,  calls  the  more  numerous  dominant  middle  party 
who,  in  vain,  strove  for  peace.  Eusebius  "  laid  before 
the  council  a  confession  of  faith,"  which  distinctly  ex- 
pressed the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity,  "  composed,  for 
the  most  part,  of  scriptural  phraseology,  which  was  con- 
sidered by  the  party  of  Eusebius  as  being  a  peculiar 
merit.  In  the  creed  of  Arius,  as  in  the  formula  of  the 
Homoousion,  they  especially  censured  the  use  of  expres- 
sions not  conformed  to  the  language  of  Scripture." 

I  read  on  p.  373,  "  Many  of  the  decided  expressions 
of  Arius,  concerning  the  nature  of  the  Son  of  God,  must, 
beyond  question,  have  appeared  offensive  even  to  the 
dominant  middle  party  at  the  council,"  &c.  "  A  con- 
demnation of  these  Arian  propositions  might,  doubtless, 
have  been  easily  carried  through,  if,  on  the  other  side,  the 
party  defending  the  Homoousion  had  not  also  raised  an 
opposition  to  the  dominant  church  doctrine  of  the  East, 
and  if  certain  individuals  had  not  come  out  as  mediators 
between  the  contending  parties,"  &c.  The  men  of  this 
middle  party  (dominant  church  party)  acted  as  "medi- 
ators"— "exerted  themselves  to  establish  peace"  —  are 
called  the  "  authors  of  peace,"  &c.,  p.  373. 

Now,  that  dominant  party  held  precisely  our  views  on 
the  subject  of  the  Godhead. 

He  still  persists  that  the  human  nature  could  make  a 
sufficient  atonement,  but  does  not  answer  the  assertion 
of  Clarke,  that  God  will  no  more  accept  of  man's  blood 
than  he  will  of  swine's  blood.  I  wish  you  to  mark  that! 
In  truth,  he  has  not  answered  anything.  My  reference 
to  Rev.  i,  4,  where  the  grace  of  the  seven  spirits  is 
invoked,  he  has  not  answered,  nor  has  he  answered  the 
many  objections  I  presented  to  him,  with  reference  to  his 
ci*eed.    He  has  not  explained  how  they  baptize  in  the 


38 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


name  of  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  a  creature ; 
mark  that !  The  creed  sajs  that  the  God  and  man  in 
Christ  were  never  to  be  divided ;  and  the  hymn  says,  that 
"  God,  the  mighty  Maker,  died  but  he  says  that  they 
were  separate  three  days,  and  that  God  did  not  die.  His 
explanation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is,  that  it  is  like  a  pendu- 
lum, attached  to  the  throne,  swinging  through  heaven, 
earth,  and  hell ;  that  is  a  veiy  good  idea,  but  better  for 
us  than  for  him,  though  I  do  not  like  the  figure.  But  he 
does  not  helieve  that  God  the  Holy  Ghost  is  like  a  pen- 
dulum, attached  to  the  throne,  swinging  through  heaven, 
earth,  and  hell !  I  believe  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  Spirit 
of  God  ;  but  he  believes  that  it  is  the  eternal  God — the 
infinite  One — and  to  attach  Him  to  the  throne  and  swing 
Him  down  to  hell,  is  very  wrong.  He  says,  that  the 
three  make  one  God,  and  if  one  were  removed,  then 
Jehovah  is  gone,  and  the  universe  is  left  an  orphan. 
Very  well !  Let  us  see ;  they  say  that  God  died,  "  when 
God,  the  mighty  Maker,  died and  Tertullian  says,  that 
God  was  not  always  a  father,  since  he  could  not  be  a 
father  until  he  had  a  son.  My  brother's  constitution 
(creed)  says,  that  Christ  was  made  up  of  very  God  and 
very  man,  who  truly  suffered,  was  crucified,  dead  and 
buried.  If  God  was  dead,  and  he  could  not  be  divided, 
then  the  whole  three  were  dead.  He  must  account  for 
this  ;  we  can  not.  Let  him  explain  !  He  says  the  Old 
Testament  Jews  believed  in  the  Trinity ;  but  I  answer, 
No.  I  would  like  him  to  quote  the  text.  A  friend  of 
mine  who  was  present  in  a  Xew  York  synagogue,  asked 
the  Eabbi  for  an  explanation  of  the  word  "  Elohim."  A 
Trinitarian  clergyman  who  stood  by,  replied,  "  Why  that 
has  reference  to  the  three  persons  in  the  Trinity,"  when 
a  Jew  stepped  forward,  and  said  that  he  must  not  men- 
tion that  word  again,  or  they  would  have  to  compel  him 
to  leave  the  house  ;  for  it  was  not  permitted  to  mention 
the  name  of  any  strange  God  in  the  synagogue. 

The  objection  that  the  Jews  do  not  believe  in  Christ, 
does  not  affect  the  argument ;  if  they  believed  that  the 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


39 


Trinity  was  found  in  the  word  EloMm^  they  would 
admit  it,  whether  they  admitted  that  Christ  had  yet  come 
or  not.  Barnes  also  gives  up  the  divine  natm-e  of  the 
Son ;  he  acknowledges  that  the  Nicene  fathers  did  not 
admit  the  proper  divinity  of  the  Son,  as  they  made 
Christ  to  be  God  of  God ;  that  is,  one  God,  derived  from 
another  God.  Thus  Clarke  and  Barnes  give  up  the 
Trinitarianism  of  the  Kicene  creed ;  and  as  brother 
Flood  agrees  with  Clarke,  he  must  give  it  up  also.  I 
will  now  proceed  with  my  argument,  showing  their  con- 
flicting views  of  the  Son  of  God. 

Clarke  says,  "  The  conjunction  of  these  two  tenns.  Son 
and  Eternity,  is  absolutely  impossible;  as  they  imply 
essentially  different  and  opposite  ideas." 

"  The  enemies  of  Christ's  divinity  have,  in  all  ages, 
availed  themselves  of  this  incautious  method  of  treating 
this  subject,  and  on  this  ground,  have  ever  had  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  defenders  of  the  Godhead  of  Christ." 

"This  doctrine  of  the  eternal  Sonship,  destroys  the 
deity  of  Christ."  "  Now  if  this  deity  be  taken  away, 
the  whole  gospel  scheme  of  redemption  is  ruined."  "  On 
this  ground  the  atonement  of  Christ  can  not  be  of  infinite 
merit,"  "  and,  consequently,  could  not  purchase  pardon 
for  the  offences  of  mankind,  nor  give  any  right  to,  or 
possession  of,  eternal  glory."  "The  veiy  use  of  this 
phrase  is  both  absurd  and  dangerous."  "  Therefore,  let 
all  who  value  Jesus  and  their  salvation,  abide  by  the 
Scriptures." 

I&v.  Mr.  C.  L.  Brown,  member  of  the  Eastern  Gen- 
esee Conference  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  in  a  book  sold  by 
the  M.  E.  Book  Concern,  in  Cincinnati,  says,  in  reply 
to  the  question,  "  Do  you  believe  that  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God  ?"  "  Not  in  your  sense  of  the  term :  he  is 
every  way  equal  with  the  Father ;  that — whenever  the 
term  Son  is  applied  to  his  divine  nature,  it  does  not  ex- 
press such  an  actual  relation  as  Father  and  Son,  but 
is  applied  to  him  solely  in  view  of  his  incarnation." 
Mr.  Brown  says,  p.  36,  "The  merit  of  the  atonement 


40 


DISCUSSION    ON  THE  TRINITY. 


clepeDded  not  so  much  upon  the  extent  of  the  suffering,  as 
it  did  upon  the  character.-'  "  Wc  believe  that  he  brought 
to  the  work  a  human  nature,  free  froui  moral  taint — pure 
as  that  of  Adam  in  pristine  innocence  ;  and  in  that  spot- 
less nature,  fulfilled  the  law  and  made  it  honorable." 

So  that  v,'ith  them  the  sufferer  on  the  cross  is  dignified 
by  being  called,  as  good  as  Adam ;  and  his  greatness  is 
dispensed  with  for  such  goodness.  Horror  of  horrors ! 
A  mere  man  as  good  as  Adam,  and  vet  Clarke  says,  that 
God  will  no  more  accept  of  nmn's  blood — it  can  no  more 
appease  God — than  swine's  bloorl.    2  Sam.  xxi,  10. 

Albert  Barnes,  Presbyterian,  agrees  with  Clarke,  that 
the  Son  of  God  is  not  eternal  or  equal  with  the  Father. 

Barnes,  Heb.  i,  '*  He  was  in  intimate  union  with  the 
Father,  and  was  one  with  him  in  some  respects  ;  though 
in  certain  others  there  was  a  distinction.  I  do  not  see 
any  evidence,  in  the  Scriptures,  of  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  generation  ;  and  it  is  certain  that  that  doctrine 
militates  against  the  proper  eternity  of  the  Son  of 
God.  The  fathers  of  the  Christian  church,  it  is  be- 
lieved, held  that  tlie  Son  of  God,  as  to  his  divine  nature, 
as  well  as  his  human  nature,  was  derived  from  the  Father. 
Hence  the  Nicene  creed  speaks  of  him  as  begotten  of  the 
Father,  before  all  worlds,  God  of  God,  etc.  They  held 
with  one  voice,  that  he  was  God  ;  but  it  was  in  this  man- 
ner. But  this  is  incredible  and  impossible ;  a  derived 
being  can  not,  in  any  proper  sense,  be  God.''  See  also 
Eom.  i.  Yet,  though  Barnes  here  denies  the  eternity  of 
the  Son  as  impossible  ;  yet,  on  John  x,  34,  he  contradicts 
himself,  by  saying,  that  "Son  of  God  is  a  divine  title, 
implying  equality  with  GodP  Thus,  also,  Barnes  gives 
up  all  the  Christian  fathers,  as  not  holding  to  the  true 
and  proper  Godhead  of  Christ ;  but  though  holding  him 
to  be  God,  yet  derived — that  is,  a  derived  God. 

Thus  both  Clarke,  the  great  Methodist  commentator, 
and  Barnes,  the  Presbyterian,  give  up  the  divinity  of  the 
Son ;  and  Barnes  gives  up  the  proper  Trinitarianism  of 
theXicene  fathers ;  which  my  brother  must  also  give  up. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


41 


Wood,  seeing  that  such  views  destroy  all  Trinity,  says, 
that  '-Christ  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God  "—and  that,  "if  the 
personality  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  be  givea 
up,  there  must  either  be  three  distinct  Gods ;  or  but  one 
person  manifested  in  three  different  characters ;  "  and 
avers,  that  "  He  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  equal  with  the 
Father." — Bib.  Die,  published  for  the  Methodist,  etc., 
1813. 

Christ,  however,  says,  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  1." 
Wesley  said,  that  he  thought  that  his  brother  Charlea 
expressed  it  best,  as  follows  : 

"From  thee,  in  one  eternal  no-w, 
Thy  Son,  thy  otfspring  flowed, 
An  everlasting  Father,  tliou, 
As  everlasting  God." — Clarke  on  Luke  i,  35. 

Eev.  C.  L.  Brown,  says,  "  Who  then  was  his  mother? 
Who  was  his  mother  V 

Wood,  says,  "  No  man  that  doubts  of  his  (the  eter- 
nal Son)  being  the  only  true  and  most  high  God,  can,  in 
consistency  with  common  sense,  allow  himself  to  be  a 
Christian ; "  thus  plainly  unchristianizing  my  brother. 

But  Clarke,  maintains  that  "  If  Christ  be  the  Son  of 
God,  as  to  his  divine  nature,  then,  he  cannot  be  eternal." 

Wood,  thinks  that  "  a  number  of  texts  represent  him 
as  God's  proper  and  only  begotten  Son,  prior  to  all  deri- 
vation of  him." 

Lutheran  Bib.  Theology,  Storr  &  Flatt,  etc.,  makes 
both  the  divine  Son  to  be  a  created  God,  and  also  deifies 
the  humanity,  p  417.  "  The  name.  Son  of  God,  is  given 
to  the  man  Jesus,  because,  according  to  the  will  of  the 
Father,  he  is  partaker  of  his  divine  perfections  ;  inasmuch 
as  the  well  beloved  Son  of  the  Father,  who  in  consequence 
of  (not  his  own  self-existence)  his  very  close  union  with 
him,  (the  Father)  is  himself  God,  etc.,  has  united  him- 
self to  the  man  Jesus  in  a  union  so  close,  that  no  other 
union  like  it,  is  to  be  found  between  God  and  any  other 
man,  and  indeed  any  other  creatm-e." 

Here  we  have  the  divine  Son  made  God  by  his  union 
4 


42 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


with  God;  and  the  man  Jesus, by  the  union,  becomes 
God ;  see  p.  420  ;  so  that  this  man  has  divine  govern- 
ment^ divine  honor,  and  is  Lord  of  all — has  all  power  in 
heaven  and  in  earth,  p.  421. 

Note ;  thus  they  make  the  divine  Son,  God,  by  union 
with  God — the  human  son  God  by  imion  with  the  divine ; 
and  yet  deny  divinity  to  the  Son  altogether,  and  accuse 
each  other  of  blasphemy  for  denying  it :  and  next  use 
the  same  irreverence  to  the  Son. 

Clarke^  on  John  i,  1,  refers  to  the  Indian  Trinity,  as  a 
duplicate  of  the  creed. 

Neander  says,  that  "  such  a  view  is  wholly  at  war 
with,  and  opposed  to,  Christianity." — ]N"ean.  i,  573. 

Wood;  "  How  often  is  his  character  of  Son  plainly  dis- 
tinguished from  his  official  character  of  Christ." 

Clarke;  "  The  doctrine  of  the  eternal  sonship,  destroys 
the  deity  of  Christ.  Now,  if  this  deity  be  taken  away, 
the  whole  gospel  scheme  of  redemption  is  ruined." 

On  this  ground,  the  atonement  of  Christ  cannot  have 
been  of  infinite  merit,  and  consequently,  could  not 
PUKCHASE  PAEDON  "  for  the  ofiences  of  mankind, 
nor  give  any  right  to  a  possession  of  eternal  glory.  The 
very  use  of  this  phrase  is  botli  absurd  and  dangerous ; 
therefore  let  all  those  who  value  Jesus  and  their  salva- 
tion, abide  by  the  Scriptures." 

Wood;  "  If  Jesus  be  not  the  supreme  God,  he  was  a 
setter  up  of  idolatry,  encouraging  men  to  worship  him- 
self ;  and  Mahomet^  who  zealously  opposed  such  worship, 
must  be  a  valuable  reformer." — Clarke,  on  Luke  i,  35, 
and  Wood,  on  Christ,  248. 

Note.  We  notice  here,  great  irreverence  for  Jesus ;  if 
thus,  and  so  is  not  the  case,  then  Jesus  was  a  setter  up 
of  idolatry — a  noted  blasphemer,  and  the  Jews  did  well 
to  crucify  him. 

Mr.  Flood's  Third  reply: 

My  friend  Summerbell,  I  am  pleased  to  see,  possesses 
a  very  good  spirit,  though  he  has  been  toiling  through  a 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


43 


serious  agony.  Objects  of  distress  always  excite  my  sym- 
pathy. I  am  a  very  sympathetic  man.  In  fact,  I  think  it 
wouid  be  well  to  make  the  confession,  that  sympathizing 
with  distress,  as  I  do  at  all  times,  it  would  be  so  great 
an  affliction  to  me,  should  my  brother  continue  to  make 
such  calls  upon  my  sympathetic  feelings,  that  I  know 
not  how  I  should  bear  it ;  I  hope,  therefore,  my  brother 
will  sti-engthen  his  nerves  for  my  sake,  that  I  may  not 
be  excited  by  any  effects  he  may  see  fit  to  introduce. 
With  respect  to  the  arrangement  for  this  discussion,  I 
must  repeat,  that  I  stated  the  simple  facts,  this  morning. 
I  had  no  knowledge  that  this  discussion  was  positively 
to  take  place,  until  I  came  within  a  few  miles'  ride  of 
this  town ;  my  brother  did  not  answer  my  letter ;  so  I 
had  not  the  slightest  intimation  that  my  brother  Sum- 
merbell  would  be  here.  I  am  very  glad  that  he  is  here, 
and  I  am  quite  liappy  that  I  am  here  too,  and  that  we 
are  all  here.  The  points  of  argument,  with  this  admis- 
sion, that  neither  of  us  concede  the  subject,  in  the 
existence  of  the  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  his 
manifestations  on  this  earth,  here  seems  to  me  a  clearly 
implied  admission  of  the  position  assumed,  that,  Jesus 
Christ,  whatever  may  be  his  true  relation,  possesses  two 
separate  and  distinct  natures.  This  is  one  point  in  the 
argument,  and  if  designed  for  any  thing,  was  designed 
by  my  good  brother  to  be  directed  to  this  point.  That 
two  natures,  whatever  should  be  those  natures,  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ,  lie  took  it  for  granted,  is  already 
acceded  ;  now,  if  we  can  ascertain  what  these  natures 
consisted  of — what  they  really  are — we  shall  accomplish 
one  principal  point  in  the  investigation  of  this  pai-t  of 
our  subject.  It  is  clearly  to  be  inferred,  that  there  was 
a  nature  of  some  description,  which  had  a  previous 
existence  ;  it  is  here  admitted,  (and  I  think  my  oppo- 
nent will  not  question  it,)  that  Jesus  Christ  already  pos- 
sesses a  human  nature  ;  that  he  was  the  son  of  Abraham, 
and  the  son  of  David  ;  that  he  was  the  son  of  man,  and 
that  he  was  a  man,  not  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty 


44 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


passages  in  the  New  Testament,  affirm,  stating,  in  some 
form  or  other,  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  humanity ;  the  fact, 
that  he  was  a  man,  is  stated  in  phraseology  sufficiently 
clear,  that  no  other  idea  can  be  drawn  from  the  language 
itself ;  and  that  he  claimed  to  be  a  man,  and  as  to  his 
flesh  united  by  kindred  blood  to  humanity,  in  that 
human  nature,  as  I  showed  in  my  previous  remarks,  he 
sustained  an  entire  exemption  from  all  evil,  yielding  a 
passive  and  actual  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  the 
divine  law  in  the  human  nature,  in  connection  with  the 
divine  nature ;  was  qualified  to  become  the  captain  of 
our  salvation,  and  accomplish  the  work  of  human  re- 
demption, to  redeem  human  nature  by  price  and  by 
power.  On  the  one  hand,  he  is  the  Son  of  God,  united 
to  human  nature  by  blood,  as  well  as  by  association ; 
on  the  other  hand,  he  was  united  to  God  by  his  divine 
nature,  one  with  the  Father  in  substance,  and  in  power, 
and  was  capable,  from  this  very  consideration,  to  become 
a  perfect  Saviour,  able  to  sympathize  with  the  distresses 
of  the  human  race,  in  their  fallen  condition  ;  realizing  at 
once  their  necessities,  and  on  the  ground  of  his  absolute 
perfection  as  God,  capable  of  meeting  every  exigency, 
and  meeting  its  most  extended  demands ;  purchasing 
salvation  for  all  them  that  obey  him.  He  quotes  Nean- 
der,  Yol.  ii,  372,  and  shows  from  this,  that  there  were 
two  parties  at  the  time  of  the  Nicene  convention,  by 
whom  these  articles,  known  as  the  Nicene  Creed,  were 
formed.  At  that  time  there  were  two  parties;  the  one 
known  by  the  name  of  Arian,  the  other  by  that  of  Trini- 
tarian. However,  he  insists  that  the  finishing  touch,  to 
Trinitarianism,  w^as  given  subsequent  to  this ;  but  then 
he  tells  us,  that  there  was  another  party,  supposed  to  be 
the  dominant  party;  and  then  my  brother  goes  on  to 
suppose,  that  this  was  the  Christian  body;  and  that 
doubtless  from  that  majority,  the  dominant  party,  the 
true  Christian  party,  descended  to  the  Christian  church, 
as  we  have  it  at  the  present  day.  I  will  now  direct  your 
attention  to  Dr.  Mosheim ;  we  have  a  little  account 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


45 


here.  The  Arians  denied  the  essential  divinity  of 
Jesns  Christ,  and  the  majority,  who  were,  I  suppose,^  of 
the  Christian  church,  decided  in  favor  of  the  Trinitarian 
party.  Well  now,  if  such  a  council  should  be  assembled 
to-day,  in  this  little  city,  composed  of  the  majority,  I 
question  most  sincerely,  whether  a  production  similar  to 
the  Nicene  creed  would  proceed  from  such  a  body  of 
men.  Yet,  he  thinks,  they  were  in  the  majority.  We 
quote  now  Dr.  Mosheim,  p.  126,  "  For  those  who,  in 
the  main,  were  far  from  being  attached  to  the  party  of 
Arius,  found  many  things  reprehensible,  both  in  the  de- 
crees of  the  council,  and  in  the  forms  of  expression  which 
it  employed,  to  explain  the  controverted  points ;  while 
the  Arians,  on  the  other  hand,  left  no  means  untried  to 
Ileal  their  wounds,  and  to  recover  their  place,  and  their 
credit  in  the  church ;  and  their  efibrts  were  crowned 
with  the  desired  success :  for  a  few  years  after  the  coun- 
cil of  Nice,  an  Arian  priest,  who  had  been  recommended 
to  the  Emperor,  in  the  dying  words  of  his  sister  Con- 
stantia,  found  means  to  persuade  him,  that  the  condem- 
nation of  Arius  was  utterly  unjust,  and  was  rather 
occasioned  by  the  malice  of  his  enemies,  than  by  their 
zeal  for  the  truth.  In  consequence  of  this,  the  Emperor 
recalled  him  from  banishment  in  the  year  330, — repealed 
the  laws  that  had  been  enacted  against  him,  and  per- 
mitted his  chief  protector,  Eusebius,  of  Nicomedia,  and 
his  vindictive  faction,  to  vex  and  oppress  the  partisans 
of  the  Nicene  council,  in  various  ways.  Athanasius, 
bishop  of  Alexandria,  was  one  of  those  who  suffered 
most  from  the  violent  measures  of  the  Arian  party. 
Invincibly  firm  in  his  purpose,  and  deaf  to  the  most 
powerful  solicitations  and  entreaties,  he  obstinately  re- 
fused to  restore  Arius  to  his  former  rank  and  office. 
On  this  account,  he  was  deposed  by  the  council  holden 
at  Tyre,  in  the  year  335 ;  and  was  afterward  banished 
into  Gaul,  while  Arius  and  his  followers  were,  with 
great  solemnity,  reinstated  in  their  privileges,  and  re- 
ceived into  the  communion  of  the  church.    The  people 


46 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


of  Alexandria,  unmoved  by  these  proceedings  in  favor 
of  Arms,  persisted  in  refusing  to  grant  him  a  place 
among  their  Presbyters ;  upon  which,  the  Emperor  in- 
vited him  to  Constantinople,  in  the  year  336,  and  ordered 
Alexander,  the  bishop  of  that  city,  to  admit  him  to  his 
communion  ;  but  before  this  order  could  be  put  in  exe- 
cution. Arias  died  in  the  Imperial  City,  in  a  very  dismal 
manner ;  and  his  sovereign  did  not  long  survive  him." 
This  was  a  political  transaction,  five  years  subsequent  to 
the  assembly  of  the  Nicene  council,  by  which  were  re- 
stored to  Arius  certain  privileges  that  had  been  forfeited. 
Had  it  been  our  fortune  to  have  lived  then,  we  might 
have  put  in  a  plea  for  a  little  sympathy.  But  the  times 
are  changed.  "  Yalens,  on  the  other  hand,  favored  the 
Arians ;  and  his  zeal  for  their  cause  exposed  their 
adversaries,  the  Nicenians,  in  the  eastern  provinces,  to 
many  severe  trials,  and  much  suffering." — Mosheim, 
Yol.  i,  p.  127. 

Here  we  have  evidence  of  what  the  Christian  parties 
were  at  that  time.  They  do  not  seem  to  have  been 
divided  in  the  manner  my  brother  appears  to  think. 
But,  admitting  that  the  Christian  church  was  in  the 
ascendant,  we  must  believe  that  Christians  were  in  favor 
of  the  Trinity,  for  the  majority  had  given  their  sanction 
to  the  Nicene  creed.  He  refers  again  to  me,  by  saying, 
that  he  believed  I  had  been  engaged  in  quoting  texts  of 
Scripture  from  Mr.  Jimeson :  "  I  pray  you  have  me 
excused."  Passages  of  Scripture  were  selected  from 
difierent  parts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments ;  I  do 
not  know  that  Mr.  Jimeson  was  consulted  in  the  quota- 
tion of  a  single  passage.  My  brother  seems  anxious 
that  I  should  say  something  about  the  seven  spirits ; 
what  that  has  to  do  with  the  question  of  the  equality  of 
Jesus  Christ  with  the  Father,  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  ;  but 
a  man  of  his  perception  may  be  able  to  discern,  but  not 
being  able  myself  to  perceive  the  association,  I  pass  it 
over ;  I  simply  say,  that  grace  is  favor ;  it  may  be  desi- 
rable to  have  the  favor  of  all  beings,  in  more  favorable 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


47 


circumstances  than  we  are,  and  under  the  circumstances, 
the  grace  of  the  seven  spirits  ;  this  language  was  uttered 
by  one  under  inspiration,  who,  of  coui-se,  knew  more  of 
the  oflBces  of  the  spirits  of  the  heavenly  world  than  our- 
selves ;  and  hence,  I  suppose,  it  is  strictly  right  that  we 
should  desire  to  have  the  grace,  or  favor,  of  all  good  be- 
ings, from  the  highest,  even  to  the  humblest  saint  that  lives 
upon  this  earth  ;  this  is  all  I  have  to  say  upon  the  subject 
at  present,  with  respect  to  the  offices  of  the  spirit,  as  the 
great  agent  in  carrying  forward  the  designs  of  Jehovah,  in 
heaven,  and  earth,  and  hell.  I  confess,  I  felt  surprised 
that  my  brother  should  indulge  in  the  tind  of  phrase- 
ology he  employed ;  I  thought  there  was  nothing  irrev- 
erent in  the  illustrations  I  used.  I  represented  by  a  figure, 
or  metaphor,  the  agency,  or  the  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
in  heaven,  earth,  and  hell ;  in  one,  as  the  source  of  re- 
joicing and  triumph ;  in  the  other,  as  awakening  con- 
version and  sanctification ;  and  in  the  third,  executing 
the  just  penalties  of  the  divine  law  ;  and  I  pass  with  this 
allusion,  that  I  would  not  willingly  indulge  in  a  single 
expression  that  could,  by  any  possibility,  be  tortured  into 
irreverence.  He  says,  the  Jews  did  not  believe  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  instances  a  minister  who 
was  threatened  with  expulsion  from  a  New  York  syna- 
gogue, for  pronouncing  the  word  expressive  of  the  Trin- 
ity ;  he  could  not  be  tolerated  on  account  of  introducing 
the  name  of  a  strange  God.  Is  he  not  aware  that  the 
Jews  are  infidels,  eveiy  one  of  them,  and  that  they  have 
never  ceased  to  reject  Jesus  ;  "  that  thou,  being  a  man, 
makest  thyself  God,'-  is  the  gi'ound  on  which  they  have 
predicated  their  rejection  of  him,  and  their  consequent 
contempt  for  his  person.  I  ask,  did  Christ  once  question 
their  position,  when  they  asserted  that  he,  being  a  man, 
made  himself  equal  with  God  ?  Hear  the  language  of 
inspiration  :  "  being  in  the  form  of  God,  he  thought  it  no 
robbery  to  be  equal  with  God ;"  Christ  thought  it  not 
robbery  to  be  equal  with  God.  So  says  the  Apostle 
Paul,  who  thinking  it  no  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God, 


48 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITY. 


he  justified  himself,  and  persisted  in  his  course,  though 
rejected  by  man  upon  this  very  ground  ;  but  my  brother 
is  in  error ;  the  Jews  have  changed  their  ground  with 
respect  to  those  passages  that  were  regarded  by  tlieir 
fathers  as  applicable  to  their  messiah,  since  they  have 
rejected  Jesus  as  the  true  messiah  ;  see  Isaiah  53.  The 
character  of  the  true  messiah  is  presented  by  the  Jewish 
church,  up  to  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  Christianity, 
in  these  passages,  which  are  applicable  to  their  promised 
messiah  ;  but  when  they  came  to  the  conclusion  to  reject 
the  Saviour,  and  to  be  infidel,  then  they  found  it  neces- 
sary, that  they  might  sustain  their  position  against  the 
invasions  of  the  Christian  church,  which  were  continually 
thrust  upon  them,  by  quotin^^  other  authorities  on  that 
ground;  and  what  is  woncferful,  they  have  distorted 
those  passages  which  apply  to  Christ,  applying  them 
to  themselves ;  and  yet  my  brother  comes  up  here  and 
tells  us,  that  the  Jews  do  not  believe  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  and  would  reject  a  person  from  their  syna- 
gogues who  would  pronounce  the  name.  I  ask.  Could  a 
minister  perform  the  rite  of  Christian  baptism  in  a  Jewish 
synagogue  ?  The  very  moment  he  uttered,  "  I  baptize 
thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  he  would  certainly  be  treated  in  the 
same  manner,  as  he  who  gave  his  influence,  as  to  the 
meaning  of  a  single  word.  We  now  come  to  the  point 
that  threw  my  brother  into  paroxysms  of  distress ;  he 
quotes,  If  Jesus  is  not  the  eternal  God,  he  was  a  setter 
up  of  idolatry ;  and  Mahomet  was  to  be  preferred  be- 
fore him  this  language  was  used  in  reference  to  Jesus 
Christ,  if  he  were  not  the  eternal  God.  I  took  it  as  from 
Clarke ;  this  seems  to  give  the  brother  a  good  deal  of 
ti'ouble ;  but  does  he  not  read,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no 
other  gods  before  me?  God  is  a  jealous  God,  and  will  not 
suffer  his  worship  to  be  given  to  another."  Again, 
there  was  an  occasion  when  a  being  of  exalted  character, 
from  his  appearance,  was  about  to  receive  acts  of  devo- 
tion at  the  hand  of  a  servant  of  God ;  namely,  from 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


49 


John,  in  the  Isle  of  Patmos  ;  the  evangelist  would  have 
fallen  down  to  worship  him,  but  he  was  rebuked  at 
once  ;  "See  thou  do  it  not,  I  am  thy  fellow  servant;" 
and  though  I  appear  to  thee,  as  a  being  tangible  to  your 
sense,  and  superior  in  glory  to  anything  you  have  pre- 
viously beheld,  I  am  not  God.  These  brighter  rays 
that  you  see  around  me,  are  the  tokens  of  my  heavenly 
triumph,  and  surround  the  redeemed  in  the  Heaven  of 
heavens  ;  they  are  not  my  own,  but  borrowed  rays  from 
the  Sun  of  Kighteousness,  by  whose  blood  I  have  been 
fitted  for  this  exalted  state.  I  indulge  in  this  paraphrase 
on  the  passage :  I  am  not  a  proper  object  of  worship — see 
that  thou  do  it  not.  Did  Christ  treat  his  worshipers 
in  this  manner  ?  Did  the  human  nature  create  the  just 
jealousy  of  Jehovah  against  any  other  being  ?  In  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ,  dwells  the  fullness  of  my  God, 
bodily ;  he  is  an  object  of  my  devotions,  for  in  him 
dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead,  bodily.  But 
the  manner  of  this  worship,  will  be  a  question  to  be  ex- 
amined hereafter.  My  opponent  quotes  from  Jimeson, 
and  says,  if  Christ  is  not  God,  he  was  an  impostor ; 
this,  of  all  things  else,  seems  most  deeply  to  penetrate 
the  soul  of  my  good  brother;  that  he  could  use  such 
language  with  regard  to  Christ ;  and  he  says,  if  Christ 
is  not  God ;  but  then,  if  he  is  God,  it  does  not  turn  out 
that  he  is  an  impostor.  These  little  if 's,  have  a  great 
deal  to  do  in  determining  serious  questions ;  if,  and  if, 
materially  alters  the  case. 

Mk.  Scmmeebell's  Fourth  address : 

"  If,"  and  "  if,"  says  my  brother  Flood;  but  I  leave  it 
to  you,  my  friends,  whether  they  would  not  have  been 
more  Christian  in  saying,  "  K  Jesus  Christ  be  not  the 
eternal  God,  ice  are  mistaken^''  rather  than  saying,  "  if 
he  be  not  the  eternal  God,  he  is  an  impostor."  This 
would  have  been  a  great  deal  better.  There  is  a  good 
deal  hangs  upon  this  little  "  if,"  as  my  brother  intimates  ; 
but  /  would  not  hang  upon  if 's  at  all.  He  quotes,  "God 
5 


50 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  to  himself."  I  do 
not  see  that  this  proves  anytliing  for  my  brother.  Yes, 
God  was  in  Christ.  "  It  is  not  I  (said  Jesns)  that  do  the 
works,  but  the  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me."  He  should 
prove  that  God  was  Christ,  and  that  Christ  was  God ; 
not  that  God  was  in  Christ ;  that  is  my  brother's  busi- 
ness. Because  a  man  in  Revelations  refuses  to  let  John 
worship  him,  my  brother  thinks  there  is  a  discrepancy  in 
my  worshiping  the  Son  of  God ;  but  I  can  not  see  any. 
I  am  willing  to  obey  God,  and  run  all  risks.  The  Deca- 
logue says,  "  thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me 
it  does  not  say,  "ye  shall  have  no  other  gods  before 
%Lsy  This  me  ungods  the  "  other  two  persons,"  for  the 
three  persons  do  not  speak  and  say  us,"  but  one,  7ne. 
He  says  the  Jews  reject  Christ ;  but  it  is  on  the  word 
^^EloMm^''  and  not  on  Christ,  that  tliey  were  arguing. 
He  said  that  the  Jews  were  Trinitarians,  and,  if  so, 
they  would  have  acknowledged  the  Trinity  in  Elohim^ 
whether  they  acknowledged  Christ  had  come  or  not.  I 
did  not  bring  this  forward  as  a  proof  on  the  question, 
but  to  show  the  opinion  of  the  Jews  on  the  word  Elohim, 
in  answer  to  my  brother's  ap]Deal  to  them.  My  brother 
says  that  the  Apostle  Paul  affirms  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
equal  with  God,  and  he  will  leave  it  for  me  to  settle  with 
the  Apostle  ;  but  I  have  no  controversy  with  the  Apostle. 
No  !  I  proved  from  Dr.  Macknight  that  Paul  did  not  say 
that  Jesus  was  equal  with  God,  but  that  it  was  the  trans- 
lators who  said  it.  So  there  is  notliing  to  settle  between 
Paul  and  me.  He  again  joins  with  the  Jews  on  John 
X,  34,  where  they  accuse  Christ  of  making  himself  equal 
with  God  ;  but  Jesus  repelled  the  charge,  saying,  "Many 
good  works  do  I  show  you,  for  which  of  these  do  ye 
stone  me  ?  and  they  said,  for  a  good  work  we  stone  thee 
not,  but  for  blasphemy  ;  and  that  because  that  thou,  be- 
ing a  man,  makest  thyself  God,  for  he  said  I  am  the 
Son  of  God.  And  Jesus  answered  them,  Is  it  not 
written  in  your  law,  I  said  ye  are  gods  ?  if,  therefore,  he 
called  them  gods  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and 


DISCUSSION  ON"  THE  TRINITY. 


61 


the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken,  say  ye  of  him  whom  the 
Father  hath  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world,  thou  blas- 
phemest,  because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ?"  Jesu3 
told  them  plainly  that  he  only  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of 
God.  You  see  my  brother  should  remember  these  things. 
He  said  the  Jews  are  infidels ;  I  admit  it ;  I  did  not 
quote  them  as  authority,  but  he  appealed  to  them  against 
me,  and  joins  them  in  saying  that  Jesus  made  himself 
equal  witli  God.  My  brother  accuses  us  of  being  Arians, 
and  of  persecuting,  (he  quotes  from  Mosheim,  i,  109).  I 
quoted  from  Dr.  Neander  that  we  were  not  Arians ;  this 
is  higher  authority  than  Mosheim  ;  his  work  is  emi- 
nently better  and  a  later  one.  I  now  refer  him  to  Mo- 
sheim, Yol.  i,  p.  109.  Maclaine,  the  learned  translator 
of  Mosheim,  says  of  those  who  accused  Eusebius,  of 
Cesarea,  of  Arianism,  "  All,  however,  that  these  writers 
prove,  is,  that  Eusebius  maintained  that  a  certain  dis- 
parity and  subordination  subsisted  between  the  persons 
in  the  Godhead.  If  we  suppose  this  to  have  been  his 
opinion,  it  will  not  follow  that  he  was  an  Arian,  unless 
that  word  be  taken  in  a  very  extensive  and  improper 
sense.  Nothing  is  more  common  than  the  abusive  ap- 
plication of  this  term  to  persons  who  have  entertained 
opinions  opposite  to  those  of  Arius."  My  brother  falls 
into  the  same  error,  and  calls  us  Arians.  The  larger  party, 
at  the  Council  of  Nice,  was  not  Arian.  I  refer  him  again 
to  the  party  there  repi-esented  by  Eusebius,  of  Cesarea,  in 
Palestine,  who  held  our  views  of  Christ.  My  brother, 
all  along,  instead  of  following  me,  has  been  leading  off 
in  affirmative  propositions ;  thus,  instead  of  reviewing 
my  speech,  he  calls  me  ofi'  to  correct  liim.  I  have  read 
to  him  from  Dr.  Barnes,  against  the  Trinitarianism  of  the 
Nicene  creed ;  that  it  destroys  the  deity  of  Christ  alto- 
gether. Clarke  denies  the  Trinitarianism  of  the  Nicene 
creed,  also.  Now,  if  they  were  Trinitarians,  would  they 
have  drawn  up  such  a  creed  as  tliey  did  ?  My  brother 
wants  to  know  how  they  came  to  draw  up  such  a  creed 
as  they  did,  if  they  were  Christians  ?  I  will  tell  you  ;  it 
was  by  the  influence  of  the  Emperor ;  he  laid  his  heavy 


52 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


hand  into  the  scale.    That  was  what  made  the  majority. 

He  again  intimates  that  they  were  Arians  and  persecuted. 
When  he  speaks  of  us  as  Arians,  just  set  it  down  for 
nothing;  the  Arians  were  of  a  different  school.  I  do 
not  wish  to  father  their  sins ;  we  have  enough  of  our 
own.  He  says,  Christ  paid  the  price  to  redeem  us.  Did 
he  pay  it  to  God  ?  or  whom  did  he  pay  ?  Did  God  re- 
ceive the  amount  for  our  salvation  in  suffering  ?  My 
brother  gets  up  making  fun  of  the  feeling  1  manifested 
in  relation  to  the  sufferings  of  the  crucified  Jesus,  and 
the  severe  language  used  against  him  by  Methodist 
authors.  I  shall  leave  my  brother  to  have  all  the  fun  to 
himself.  He  says,  that  I  admit  that  Jesus  had  two 
natures.  ISo  !  1  alluded  to  his  own  doctrine  in  speaking 
of  two  natures ;  that  it  could  not  have  been  the  human 
nature  that  came  down  from  heaven  before  it  went  there, 
nor  the  divine  that  came  not  to  do  its  own  will.  But 
his  argument  claims  not  only  two  natures,  but  tico  he- 
ings — two  whole  natures — one  whole  God,  and  one  whole 
man.  There  may  be  two  natures  in  a  block  of  wood ; 
but  two  persons,  one  an  eternal,  infinite  God,  and  the 
other  a  finite  man  ;  one  existing  from  all  eternity,  a  be- 
ing without  beginning  of  days,  the  other  a  man  a  few 
years  old,  are  not  two  natures  merely,  but  two  beings.  I 
have  thus  answered  my  opponent.  I  will  now  resume 
my  argument  on  the  contradictions  among  orthodox  min- 
isters upon  this  doctrine. 

Dr.  Jimeson,  the  able  expositor  of  the  XXY  Articles, 
whom  my  brother  has  here  with  him,  and  approves, 
says :  "If  Jesus  were  not  God,  the  authors  of  the  Gospels 
and  the  Epistles  must  have  adopted  a  very  dangerous 
style.''  "  To  the  Jews  Christ  constantly  proposed  him- 
self as  the  very  and  eternal  God."  P.  78. 

Jesus  said :  "I  ascend  to  my  Father  and  to  your 
Father,  to  my  God  and  to  your  God."  John  xx,  17.  '*  If  I 
honor  myself,  my  honor  is  nothing  ;  it  is  my  Father  that 
honoreth  me,  of  whom  ye  say,  that  he  is  yoiu'  God." 
John  viii,  54. 

Jimeson  says :  "  If  he  is  not  the  b-ue  God,  Christ  him- 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


self,  as  well  as  his  Apostles,  must  have  practiced  the 
grossest  possible  deception,  and  are  therefore  unworthy  a 
name  in  the  history  of  the  world.*'  lb.,  p.  79.  That  is,  if 
my  creed  be  not  trne,  then  I  am  not  mistaken ;  but  Christ 
practiced  the  grossest  possible  deception,  and  is  unwor- 
thy !  &c. 

Wood  says  :  "  K  Christ  be  not  God,  the  Jews  did  well 
to  crucify  him  as  a  noted  blasphemer  that  made  himself 
equal  with  God."  Art.  Christ. 

Jesus  still  said:     My  Father  is  greater  than  I."' 

Wood  continues :  Then  they  did  well  to  persecute  his 
Apostles,  who  represented  him  as  the  object  of  worship.'' 

The  Apostles  said  :  ''To  us  there  is  none  other  God  but 
one ;  for  though  there  be  that  are  called  gods,  whether 
in  heaven  or  on  earth,  as  there  be  lords  many  and  gods 
manv ;  but  unto  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father.'' 
1  Cor.  iv,  4-8. 

AVhat  words  are  these  ?  If — if  our  conclusions  are  not 
true,  then  Jesus  was  a  blasphemer.  Thus  the  Son  of  the 
living  God,  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace 
and  truth,  the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead,  is  tried  by  the 
Methodist  ministers,  on  the  charge,  that  unless  he  is  the 
eternal  God,  he  was  a  noted  blasphemer  and  a  setter  up 
of  idolatry,  and  that  the  Jews  did  well  to  cracify  him  ; 
and  Mahomet  is  chosen  in  his  stead.  They  do  not  say, 
if  Jesus  be  not  the  eternal  God,  then  ice  were  mistaken. 
Oh,  no ;  they  are  orthodox !  But,  then,  he  icas  rais- 
taken — he  was  a  setter  up  of  idolatry,  and  the  Jews  did 
well  to  crucify  him.  My  dear  brother  I  in  what  com- 
pany are  you  ?  Dear  friends  I  sweet  friends  I  can  you 
fellowship  such  a  system  ?  You  may  have  thought  for- 
merly that  it  was  only  Christ's  followers,  a  poor  despised 
company  of  Christians,  who  were  cursed ;  but  here  you 
see  Christ  and  his  Apostles  are  not  spared  !  Xo  allow- 
ances are  made  for  the  mistakes  of  fallible  men  I  But 
if  our  creed  is  not  right,  then  Jesus  was  an  impostor,  a 
setter  up  of  idolatiy ;  the  Jews  did  well  to  cruelty  him, 
and  to  persecute  liis  Apostles.    Do  you  not  remember 


54 


DISCUSSION   OX  THE  TRINITY. 


that  it  is  wi'itten  of  some,  tlmt  they  have  crucified  the 
Son  of  God  afresh,  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame  ?  And 
does  not  this  look  like  its  fulfillment  ?  Can  you  not  see 
him  even  now  wounded  {  See  his  hands  bleed  again  in 
the  palms,  and  see  the  blood  oozing  out  of  his  feet  'i  See 
the  purple  tide  flowing  out  of  his  side,  running  down  to 
the  ground  ?  See  his  temples  all  torn  again  with  the 
thorny  crown  ?  See  them  smite  him  with  the  palms  of 
their  hands  ]  See  them  spit  in  his  face,  and  reject  him  ? 
Hark,  hear  them  say,  "  If  Christ  be  not  the  eternal  God, 
the  Jews  did  well  to  crucify  him  I  Does  not  the  Spirit 
whisper  in  your  hearts,  "  This  doctrine  is  Antichrist, 
which  denieth  the  Father  and  the  Son  'i  Jesus  is  again 
rejected  and  set  at  naught !  Upon  his  back  again  are 
seen  the  fun-ows  of  the  cruel  scourge.  Shall  we  ask 
him,  what  are  these  wounds  in  thy  hands  ?  Then  shall 
he  answer,  "  Those  with  which  1  was  wounded  in  the 
house  of  my  friends."    Zechariah  xiii,  6. 

Yet  Jesus,  most  blasphemed  and  rejected,  still  prays 
for  them,  "  Father,  forgive  them,  they  know  not  what 
they  do."  Still  they  cry — those  who  thank  God  that 
they  are  not  as  other  men — and  look  upon  others  with 
pious  horror ;  they  say,  '*  If  Jesus  was  not  God,  the  Jews 
did  well  to  crucify  him,  and  to  persecute  his  Apostles !" 
And  these  are  the  gi-eat  men  in  the  Methodist  church  : 
Wood,  of  the  Bible  Dictionary ;  Mattison  and  Brown, 
the  exterminators  of  heretics;  Jimeson.  the  able  ex- 
pounder of  the  XXV  Articles ;  Clarke,  the  great  com- 
mentator; and  Bishop  Watson,  the  oracle;  and  these 
have  diiiered  no  more  from  Barnes,  the  great  Presby- 
terian, and  Stoor  and  Flatt,  the  Lutherans,  <fec.,  than 
among  themselves. 

I  do  -not  like  the  use  of  such  language  concerning 
Christ.  It  does  not  look  as  though  they  reverenced  him 
enough.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  hard  on  them,  but  we 
shoufd  not  defend  such  a  system  of  religion.  It  does  not 
exist  in  their  hearts  but  in  their  heads ;  but  called  ortho- 
dox it  passes  current,  even  though  it  lead  men  to  speak 


BISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


65 


thus  of  Christ.  I  say  with  Jesus,"  Father,  forgive  them, 
they  know  not  what  they  do." 

I  will  now  present  forty-four  sentences,  proving  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  distinct  from  God  in  person. 

1.  Christ  is  God-s. 

2.  He  is  God's  Son. 

3.  He  is  God's  sent. 

4.  He  is  God's  servant. 

5.  He  is  at  God's  right  hand. 

6.  God  gave  his  Son ;  but  the  Son  did  not. 
T.  God  has  a  Son ;  but  the  Son  has  not. 

8.  God  is  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ ;  but  the  Son  is 

not. 

9.  God  is  invisible ;  but  the  Son  is  not. 

10.  God  has  no  body ;  but  the  Son  has, 

11.  God  is  three  persons;  and  the  Son  is  but  one. 

12.  God  never  prays  ;  but  the  Son  does. 

13.  God  is  not  a  mediator;  but  the  Son  is. 

14.  God  has  no  Father ;  but  the  Son  has. 

15.  God  never  gives  thanks. 

16.  God  is  never  second. 

17.  God  has  no  God. 

18.  God  never  sacrifices  his  own  will. 

19.  God  does  not  receive  his  words  from  another. 

20.  God  does  not  receive  his  power  of  another. 

21.  None  creates,  saves,  or  judges,  by  God. 

22.  Nothing  is  unknown  to  God. 

23.  Tliere  is  nothing  that  God  can  not  do  of  himself. 

24.  God  will  never  be  subject  to  another.    See  1  Cor. 

XV,  34. 

25.  God  was  not  a  sacrifice. 

26.  God  was  not  scourged,  spit  upon,  or  bufieted. 

27.  God  did  not  bear  his  cross. 

28.  God  never  forsook  God. 

29.  God  did  not  come  out  from  God,  nor  ascend  up  to 

God. 

30.  God  never  said.  My  Father  is  greater  than  I. 

31.  God  did  not  receive  his  life  of  another. 


56 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


32.  God  was  never  sent  by  another. 
83.  God  was  never  dead,  nor  buried. 

34.  God  performs  all  his  own  works  in  his  own  name. 

35.  God  never  looks  up  to  another. 

36.  God  never  became  poor  for  our  sakes. 

37.  God  was  not  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels. 

38.  God  is  never  called  the  angel  of  God. 

39.  God  is  not  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

40.  God  is  not  the  Lamb  of  God. 

41.  God  never  ofiered  himself  to  God. 

42.  God  never  made  satisfaction  to  God. 

43.  God  is  not  a  man,  neither  the  Son  of  man. 

44.  God  is  supreme,  the  Father  of  all. 

I  hope  that  my  brother  will  take  up  each  of  these  forty- 
four  arguments,  each  one  of  which  shows  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  distinct  in  person  from  God,  and,  conse- 
quently, can  not  be  the  God  that  lie  diflers  from.  If  I 
produced  no  more  than  one  discrepancy,  he  would  be 
bound  to  clear  it  up,  or  to  renounce  his  system  ;  but  here 
are  forty-four,  and  we  can  produce  hundreds  and  thou- 
sands of  texts  to  the  same  import. 

Let  me  now  call  your  attention  to  God,  as  revealed  in 
his  word.  The  universe  of  worlds  rolling  on  high, 
reveals  his  glory.  Day  unto  day  uttereth  speech ;  and 
night  unto  night  showeth  knowledge.  Every  atom  of 
creation — every  star  sparkling  on  high — proves  his  wis- 
dom, power,  and  goodness. 

1.  Though  God  has  never  been  seen. 

2.  Yet  the  universe  will  continually  remind  us  of  his 
existence. 

3.  The  glories  of  the  shining  worlds,  and  the  adapta- 
tion of  nature  to  all  our  ^ants^  prove  his  goodness. 

4.  The  vastness  of  creation  proves  his  power. 

5.  Every  atom  of  the  physical,  with  every  intelligence 
of  the  spiritual  worlds  prove  his  wisdom.  And, 

6.  The  perfect  adaptation  of  all,  proves  his  unity. 
Nine  proper  names  belong  to  God,  viz : 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


57 


1.  Jehovah^  Jah^  Ehejah;  are  three  denoting  self- 

existence. 

2.  El^  Eloah^  EloMm:  are  three  denoting  his 
poioer. 

3.  Adonai^  Shaddai^  and  Jehovah  Tsebaoth;  are 
three  denoting  government. 

These  are  generally  translated  Jehovah^  God^  and 
Lord. 

God's  power  is  called  omnipotence ;  his  wisdom,  om- 
niscience ;  his  goodness,  blessedness ;  his  universality, 
omnipresence ;  and  the  perfection  of  his  nature,  infinity. 
He  is  unequaled  in  majesty.,  g^on^y-^  power.,  and  eternity. 
There  is  not  a  being  in  the  universe  but  is  dependent  on 
him  for  life,  happiness,  power,  and  all  that  they  enjoy ; 
while  God  is  independent  of  all,  underived.,  urtbegotten^ 
uncreated^  uncaused.,  self-existent.,  independent.  As  is 
the  difference  between  any  given  distance  or  quantity^ 
and  infinity — between  any  given  time  and  eternity, 
such  is  the  difference  between  the  most  perfect  created 
heing  in  the  universe,  and  the  supreme  Being.  Yet  as 
the  insect  of  a  day  supposes  time  to  be  eternity,  and 
mortal  man  to  be  God  ;  so  man,  in  his  turn,  is  ever  in- 
clined to  worship  the  greatness  which  dazzles  his  intel- 
lect ;  and  to  imagine  that  power  supreme  which  he  can 
not  comprehend. 

That  there  are  intermediate ^rm(?^j?^^7^/^V5,  and  powers^ 
and  thrones^  and  dominions^  the  great  Book  of  heaven 
clearly  informs  us.  And  that  we  might,  ere  this,  have 
become  better  informed  upon  this  infinitely  interesting 
mhject^  had  not  the  key  of  knowledge  been  removed  by 
priestcraft,  no  informed  mind  can  doubt.  But  reason 
has  been  denounced  as  fit  only  for  skeptics ;  and  inves- 
tigation., as  sapping  the  foundation  of  truth. 

The  philosopher,  unless  willing  to  be  denounced  and 
burnt  as  a  heretic,  must  cmcify  his  understanding  to 
Justin,  or  Athanasius,  or  Calvin.  And  yet,  we  doubt 
not,  but  that  even  persecution  has  been  overruled  to  our 
good.    Had  John  Bunyan  not  been  persecuted,  he  would 


58 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


not  now  have  been  known.  His  Pilgrim's  Progress  was 
written  during  his  twelve  years'  confinement  in  prison  for 
heresy.  It  is  the  bruised  rose  that  imparts  the  sweetest  fra- 
grance ;  and  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  was  the  seed  of  the 
church.  Eighteen  hundred  years  ago  they  led  to  be  critci- 
JiedoYLQ  whom  the  chief  priests  called  seditious  and  a  blas- 
phemer; but  the  efiects  of  his  death,  each  succeeding  year, 
cause  great  joy  in  heaven,  and  great  terror  in  hell ;  for 
the  Hood  of  that  just  One  is  saving  the  world.  It  must 
needs  be  that  ofienses  come ;  but  woe  unto  that  man,  of 
whom  the  offense  cometh.  Institutions  of  learning  are 
erected ;  colleges  are  built ;  seminaries  founded ;  the 
dead  languages  are  studied ;  the  fields  of  science  are 
explored ;  and  students  over  the  midnight  lamp,  pray 
to  heaven  for  aid,  and  seek  for  the  deep  things  of 
God,  and  yet,  are  forced  to  submit  to  have  their  intel- 
lect chained  to  the  chariot  wheels  of  past  generations, 
and  to  receive  such  homeopathic  doses  of  knowledge  as 
our  stringent  forefathers  had  obtained,  or  chose  to  com- 
municate, and  deigned  to  deal  out  to  us  as  articles  of 
faith.  Every  phrase  concerning  God — every  phrase  con- 
cerning the  Son — every  phrase  concerning  the  Spirit — 
every  phrase  concerning  angels,  has  become  stereotyped. 
The  supreme  majesty  of  Jehovah  must  be  worshiped 
under  the  barbarous  appellations  of  Triune ;  Blessed 
Trinity ;  Three-one,  God-man ;  Second  Person ;  Third 
Person :  while  Omnipotence,  Omniscience,  and  Omni- 
presence, become  the  most  common  household  phrases. 
The  time  once  was,  when  a  Moses,  or  Joshua,  in  approach- 
ing the  heavenly  majesty,  took  off  their  shoes ;  the  time 
has  since  been  that  those  who  would  thus  dare  investi- 
gate a  manifested  deity,  would  j^wz^  off  their  lives.  These 
people  have  considered  "ignorance  as  the  mother  of  de- 
votion,"— devotion  to  a  priest, — a  golden  calf,  or  to  the 
Virgin  Mary,  or  patron  saint. 

In  consequence  of  this  interdict  on  the  knowledge  of 
God,  man  has  been  driven  from  the  most  sublime  sub- 
ject of  religion  or  philosophy;  and  the  contemplation 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


59 


of  heavenly  subjects  has  been  rendered  uninteresting, 
and  essa3'S  upon  that  subject  tame^  jejune^  and  monoto- 
nous^ while  innumerable  passages  of  Scripture,  of  most 
vital  importance,  are  abandoned  as  unintelligible.  Igno- 
rance has  crushed  the  rising  thought;  bigotry  has  usurped 
the  throne  of  knowledge ;  and  truth  has  been  sacrificed 
to  superstition. 

Mr.  Flood's  Fourth  reply : 

This  is  the  closing  argument  of  the  afternoon.  The 
first  point,  I  believe,  to  which  I  have  to  invite  your  atten- 
tion, is  with  regard  to  the  assertion  of  my  opponent,  that 
the  majority  of  the  IN'icene  council,  were  not  this  body 
of  Christians  here,  but  a  similar  body,  representing  the 
same  views,  and  this  is  constituted  with  the  Trinitarian 
creed,  published  by  the  council,  staring  him  in  the  face. 
He  does  not  assume  that  it  was  this  body  of  people,  but 
one  holding  similar  sentiments ;  and  that  this  consti- 
tuted the  majority  of  the  party  at  the  time  of  this  council. 
With  regard  to  the  two  natures  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  he  seems  now  rather  desirous  of  getting  free 
from  the  position,  which  I  stated  in  his  wwds,  "  neither 
of  us  said  he  believed  that  the  human  nature  of  Jesus 
Christ  existed  in  heaven,  prior  to  his  manifestation  in 
this  world ;  "  this  is  an  acknowledgment  that  there  was 
another  nature,  which  was  not  human,  and  that  that 
which  was  not  human,  did  not  exist  prior  to  its  manifes- 
tation on  this  earth ;  and  I  know  this  position  to  be  oc- 
cupied by  those  entertaining  similar  views  to  my  brother. 
There  is  one  point  to  which  1  would  direct  your  attention ; 
if  there  be  a  difficulty  involved  in  the  fact  that  there  is 
one  God,  and  that  that  one  may  be  composed  of  three 
persons  ;  is  there  not  an  equal  difficulty  involved  in  the 
fact  that  there  may  be  two  natures  in  Christ,  and  that 
one  may  be  composed  of  two  different  persons?  for  he 
insists  that  it  is  a  mere  quibble  in  me,  to  say  that  the 
human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  does  not  constitute  a  sepa- 
rate person  ;  I  assume,  on  the  contrary,  that  he  took  upon 


60 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITT. 


him  a  nature,  and  identified  with  his  person,  making  a 
union  with  bis  person,  and  that  nature  which  he  took  upon 
him  was  human,  making  with  him,  two  separate  and  dis- 
tinct natures,  a  manhood,  and  Godhead;  this  is  the  position 
which  I  occupy,  and  the  position  wliich  I  have  stated 
from  the  first ;  and  if  difficulty  be  involved  in  the  fact, 
that  the  Godhead  is  possessed  of  three  persons,  equal  in 
substance,  power,  and  eternity,  is  there  not  an  equal  dif- 
ficulty involved  in  the  fact,  that  Christ  had  an  existence 
prior^o  his  manifestation  in  the  flesh,  and  that  his  human 
nature  was  not  manifested  prior  to  his  appearance,  and 
that  in  Christ  existed  two  persons,  a  divine  person,  and 
a  human  pei-son?  I  assume,  that  Christ  has  authorized 
us  to  treat  the  subject  in  this  light ;  he  intimated  the 
existence  of  a  manhood  and  a  Godhead,  in  his  nature, 
in  his  language  to  the  Jews,  in  John,  viii,  where  he 
says,  "betbre  Abraham  was,  I  am."  Calmefs  explana- 
tion ot  this  passage  is,  "  I  existed  before  the  time  of  any 
merely  human  creature ;  you  Jews  perceive  the  man 
Christ  Jesus,  which  has  appeared  to  you,  which  ye  think 
ye  know ;  but  beside  this  outward  person,  there  is  a 
divine  nature,  which  subsisted  in  my  person ;  before 
Abraham  was,  I  am."  Abraham  saw  him,  treated  him 
as  a  Saviour,  and  predicted  his  coming  into  the  world. 
I  give  the  preface  of  the  learned  Calmet,  rendered  by 
Clarke,  but  from  memory,  however:  he  inquires, 
"Whether  there  might  not  be  two  natures  in  a  stick 
of  wood?"  By  submitting  it  to  chemical  analysis,  it  is 
possible,  this  might  be  ascertained  to  be  the  fact ;  and  he 
thus  designs  to  pass  ofi'  these  very  serious  difficulties  of 
the  human  and  divine  nature,  with  this  supposition. 
The  word  Trinity,  I  admit,  does  not  occur  in  the  Scrip- 
tures; and  I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  term '  Divine  Son 
of  God,'  occurring  in  the  Bible ;  if  it  occur,  it  is  an 
exceptional  term.  I  meet  with  the  term.  Son  of  God ; 
the  disciples  referred  to  him  that  spoke  to  the  waves,  as 
a  divine  being — not  only  as  a  divine  being,  but  as  God 
in  the  highest  possible  sense ;  and,  hence,  I  insist,  that 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


61 


in  view  of  tliose  passages,  that  while  in  his  human  nature 
he  claims  equality  with  the  Father,  and  was  entitled  to 
it ;  then,  of  course,  there  is  a  propriety  in  using  such 
terms  as  we  do,  in  regard  to  the  Trinity.  My  opponent 
refers  to  some  forty  arguments,  which,  he  believes,  make 
it  impossible,  that  Jesus  Christ  could  have  been  God ; 
and  he  does  hope  that  the  brother  will  follow  him.  Now, 
if  I  have  not  been  laboring  to  follow  him,  I  know  not 
what  I  have  done  ;  I  have  regularly  taken  his  arguments 
in  the  order  in  which  they  were  submitted,  and  attempted 
to  answer  them.  God,  he  says,  has  no  body;  but  the 
Son  has  a  body.  He  set  out,  this  morning,  with  the  as- 
sertion, that  God  had  a  body,  and  had  become  visible  to 
Moses ;  and  now  he  assumes  that  God  has  no  body,  but 
Christ  has  a  body;  here  Christ  is  not  God.  Well  now, 
if  this  prove  anything,  it  proves  too  much ;  he  is  not 
God,  for  his  God  has  no  body.  Now,  I  assume,  that  God, 
as  God,  existed  without  a  visible  body,  and  that  he  might 
have  so  existed  to  all  eternity ;  but  God  did  descend  to 
take  a  visible  body,  in  connection  with  Jesus  Christ,  as  a 
temple.  Thus  in  this  temple  of  humanity  was  embodied 
the  Godhead,  for  the  express  purpose,  as  we  showed,  for 
the  redemption  and  salvation  of  our  race. 

He  said,  God  does  not  pray,  but  the  8on  does ;  there- 
fore, he  cannot  be  God.  Now  it  is  strange,  that  in  the 
face  of  our  position,  so  clearly  defined,  he  could  so  impose 
upon  his  own  mind,  as  to  pass  this  off  as  an  argument. 
We  have  nowhere  asserted  that  the  human  nature  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  God.  No  Trinitarian  ever  assumed  that 
the  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  is  God,  but  that  the 
Word,  Logos,  which  was  in  the  beginning  with  the 
Father,  was  God,  and  is  God ;  and  the  distinction  must 
be  maintained.  We  hold,  then,  that  the  human  nature, 
in  its  inferiority,  in  its  subjection  to  the  Father,  is  depen- 
dant upon  the  Father ;  it  was  a  medium  through  which 
blessings,  and  glory,  could  be  conferred  on  our  fallen 
race  ;  it  was  the  medium  of  communication  between  both 
God  and  man;  Christ  in  his  human  nature  associated 


62 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TEIXITY. 


with  the  divine  nature,  holding  communication  with  the  di- 
vine nature  ;  and  for  this  express  purpose  and  design,  a 
union  was  constituted  between  God  and  human  nature — 
took  upon  himself  not  the  nature  of  angels,  but  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  and  was  found  in  fashion  as  a  man — became 
obedient  to  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.  He  quotes 
1  Cor.  XV,  22,  where  "Christ  is  subject  to  the  Father,"  then 
shows  that  the  Son  submitted  to  the  Father,  that  God  may 
be  all  in  all.  Here  is  a  closing  up  of  the  mediatorial  reign  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  judgment  is  set,  and  the  condition  of  huma- 
nity is  sealed  lor  ever ;  he  that  has  been  the  mediator,  now 
becomes  the  judge.  The  Son  has  been  subject  to  the 
Father ;  but  now  humanity,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ, 
holds  communion  with  the  Father.  During  man's  pro- 
bation, mercy  triumphs  ;  justice  is  stayed ;  vengeance  is 
withheld  ;  the  day  of  mercy  is  extended  to  the  rebel ;  to 
the  hell-deserving,  Christ  is  our  surety  in  presence  of  the 
Father,  for  he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us. 
This  is  the  point  then.  Then  shall  he  cease  to  appear  in 
his  vesture  dipped  in  blood.  Kow  he  ceases  to  exercise 
his  office  of  mediator ;  he  becomes  judge  of  quick  and 
dead.  The  resun-ection  of  Christ  was  the  triumph  over 
his  enemies ;  the  accomplishment  of  his  glorious  designs, 
and  execution  of  the  judgment  of  heaven  upon  those 
who  continue  unbelievers.  Kow  hear  the  command  of 
Revelation :  unto  the  Son  he  says,  "  thy  throne,  O  God, 
is  forever  and  ever."  Mark  it.  I  will  just  turn  to  Dr. 
Barnes,^.  58,  ^'A  throne  is  the  seat  on  which  a  monarch 
sits,  and  is  here  the  symbol  of  dominion ;  because  kings, 
when  acting  as  mlers,  sit  on  thrones.  Thus  a  throne  be- 
comes the  emblem  of  authority  or  empire.  Here  it 
means,  that  his  ride  or  dominion  would  be  perpetual,  or 
'for  ever  and  ever ; '  which  assuredly  could  not  be  ap- 
plied to  Solomon.  The  phrase,  '  O  God,'  could  not  be 
applied  to  Solomon ;  but  applied  to  the  Messiah,  it  proves 
what  the  apostle  is  aiming  to  prove  in  that  he  is  above 
the  angels." 

Thus  a  throne  becomes  the  emblem  of  authority  or 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


empire ;  and  the  position  first  occupied,  that  his  reign 
would  be  everlasting. 

My  brother  intimates  that  there  is  very  little  original- 
ity about  me.  Well,  I  suppose  the  condemnation  is  a  just 
one ;  I  am  not  disposed  to  call  my  good  brother's  judg- 
ment in  question — and  if  he  manifests  a  little  more  origi- 
nality, and  ventures  out  a  little  further  on  his  own 
authority,  I  will  do  my  best  to  follow  him.  God  has  no 
equal.  Philippians  ii,  5,  "Let  this  mind  be  in  you." 
"  Thought  it  not  robbery,"  &c.  Now,  the  brother  desired 
that  Christ  and  his  brethren  might  not  disagree.  Well, 
let  that  expression  pass  for  what  it  is  worth — I  will  leave 
him,  and  Paul,  to  settle  the  difficulty ;  "  Christ  thought  it 
not  robbery;"  but  he  says  that  God  has  no  equal,  can 
have  none ;  now  it  does  seem  to  me  that  a  very  serious 
difficulty  has  arisen  between  Paul  and  my  brother  Sum- 
mcrbell,  and  I  leave  him  to  settle  the  difficulty  with  Paul, 
at  his  leisure.  John  v,  17,  "  My  Father  worketh  hitherto, 
and  I  work ;"  he  was  equal  with  the  Father,  and  on  this 
account  the  Jews  undertook  to  stone  liim, — they  rejected 
him  on  this  account.  John  x,  30,  "1  and  my  Father  are 
one."  This  was  the  position  assumed  by  Jesus.  They 
had  assumed  the  equality  of  Jesus  with  the  Father  from 
this  very  position ;  but  the  brother  labors  to  explain  it 
away.  In  the  passage  quoted  from  John,  I  have  shown 
that  the  Jews  understood,  that  when  he  assumed  to  be 
the  Son  of  God,  he  made  himself  equal  with  God,  and  on 
this  account  they  were  disposed  to  stone  him ;  thus  it  was 
no  relief  to  them,  when  he  said,  "  I  am  the  Son  of  God." 
John  x,  37,  "  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father  believe 
me  not ;  and  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe 
the  works,  that  ye  may  know,  and  believe,  that  the 
Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  him."  Now  here  are  two  motives 
so  fully  expressed,  that  there  can  be  no  equivocation 
respecting  it.  With  these  remarks  on  the  unity  of  the 
essential  equality  of  Christ  with  God,  let  us  now  advert 
to  the  charge,  that  we  have  not  followed  our  opponent, 
with  the  exception  of  a  single  point,  of  running  over 


64 


DlSCrSSIOX  ox  THE  TRIXITY. 


each  of  his  forty-four  arguments ;  vre  believe  that  they 
have  answered  ail  that  has  been  advanced;  his  fort}'- 
four  arguments  remind  me  of  a  poem  that  was  written, 
containing  forty -four  verses ;  but  it  so  happened  that 
every  stanza  had  precisely  the  same  words ;  and  so  with 
my  brother's  arguments ; — when  one  was  answered,  the 
whole  was  answered ;  here  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  spend 
time  in  answering,  singly,  the  Jong  catalogue  that  has 
been  presented.  Xotice  the  assumption  of  Christ  to 
Philij?,  John  xiv,  9,  "Have  I  been  so  long  time  with 
thee,  and  hast  tliou  not  known  me,  Philip  ?"  Hebrews  i, 
3,  "Who  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  ex- 
press image  of  his  person,  who  upholdeth  all  things  by 
the  word  of  his  power."  Here,  Christ  is  declared  to  be 
the  brightness  of  his  Father  s  glory,  and  the  express 
image  of  his  person ;  in  this  way  he  is  made  manifest  to 
the  world,  as  the  Father  revealed,  and  the  only  revela- 
tion of  the  Father  that  has  ever  been  made  to  the  world. 
The  remarks  of  Mr.  Barnes  are  very  appropriate: 

Barnes,  p.  26.  "The  sun  itself  we  do  not  see;  the 
beams  that  flow  from  it  we  do  see.  The  m.eaning  here 
is,  that  if  God  be  represented  under  a  luminous  body,  as 
he  is  in  the  Scriptures,  (see  Ps.  Ixxiv,  11;  Mai,  iv,  2,)  then 
Christ  is  the  radiance  of  that  light — the  brightness  of  that 
luminary." 

Here  God  is  represented  under  the  image  of  a  lumin- 
ous body  ;  Malachi  iv,  2  ;  "And  unto  you  that  fear  my 
name,  shall  the  Sun  of  Pighteousness  arise  with  healing 
in  his  wings."  This  language  also  accords  with  John 
xiv,  9,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  way  that 
would  not  have  been  possible,  had  he  not  been  one  with 
the  Father.  Matthew  xi,  27,  "All  things  are  delivered 
unto  me  of  my  Father,  and  no  man  knoweth  the  Son,  but 
the  Father,  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father  save 
the  Son.  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  him." 
Kow  whatever  is  revealed  to  us  of  God  the  Father,  is 
revealed  to  us  through  the  Son;  through  him  the  rays, 
so  to  speak,  of  divine  nature,  are  manifested  to  the  world ; 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  65 

now  the  claim  set  up  by  yon,  my  brother,  that  Christ 
and  the  Father  can  not  dwell  in  one  person,  seems  to  be 
entirely  invented;  the  language  of  Christ,  and  the 
language  of  the  Apostle,  will  admit  of  no  other  fair  con- 
struction ;  the  equality  of  Christ  with  the  Father  is  also 
to  be  inferred  from  these  appellations  that  are  given  to 
Christ;  1st  John  v,  20,  "And  we  know  that  the  Son  of 
God  has  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that 
we  may  know  him  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  him  that 
is  true,  even  in  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ;  this  is  the  true 
God,  and  eternal  life."  What  could  be  more  pointed  than 
this  ?  Jude  i,  23,  To  the  only  wise  God,  our  Saviour, 
be  glory,  and  majesty,  dominion,  and  power,  both  now, 
and  forever."  If  that  does  not  declare  the  essential 
equality  of  Christ,  with  the  Father,  in  substance,  in 
power,  in  glory,  and  in  eternity,  I  know  not  what  lan- 
guage could.  Eevelation  xvii,  14,  "These  shall  make 
war  with  the  Lamb,  and  the  Lamb  shall  overcome  them, 
for  he  is  Lord  of  lords,  and  King  of  kings."  Revelation 
xix,  13,  "And  he  was  clothed  with  a  vesture  dipped  in 
blood,  and  his  name  is  called  the  Word  of  God."  Rev. 
xix,  18,  "And  he  hath  on  his  vesture,  and  on  his  thigh 
a  name  written:  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords."  Rev. 
xxii,  13,  "I  am  Alpha,  and  Omega,  the  beginning,  and 
the  end ;  the  first,  and  the  last."  Of  what  being  could 
this  be  asserted,  I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the  last,  but  of 
God  ?  Can  such  language  be  applicable  to  any  other  ?  by 
what  created  or  descended  being,  could  it  be  assumed  that 
he  was  the  first,  and  the  last  ?  this  agrees  with  the  lan- 
guage of  the  apostle,  w^here  he  says,  "Thou  art  the  same, 
and  thy  years  shall  not  fail ;  but  those  who  press  on  to 
destruction,  and  will  not  be  under  his  direction,  and 
authority,"  he  says,  "  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  fold  them 
up,  and  they  shall  be  changed ;"  but  change  is  not  to  be 
inferred,  with  regard  to  Christ;  he  is  unchangeable, 
immutable;  he  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for 
ever.  Barnes,  p.  43.  "The  apostle  says,  Thou  art  the 
same.  Thou  wilt  not  change  and  thy  years  shall  not 
6 


66 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


fail.  Thou  wilt  exist  forever  unchanged.  What  could 
more  clearly  prove  that  he,  of  whom  this  is  spoken,  is 
immutable  ?  Yet  it  is  undoubtedly  spoken  of  the  Messiah, 
and  must  demonstrate  that  he  is  divine. 

Mr.  Sum^ieebixl's  Fifth  address  : 

Kind  friends — We  are  happy  to  address  you  again  this 
morning,  and  happy  that  we  have  such  a  pleasant  feeling 
manifested  in  this  discussion.  I  think  that  my  brother 
loves  me  a  little  better  than  when  we  first  met  here ;  and  I 
am  sure  that  I  love  him  more.  If  the  love  increases,  it 
will  be  a  happy  discussion  indeed. 

My  brother  quotes  the  text,  "  I  have  power  to  lay  down 
my  life,*'  etc.,  to  show  that  Christ  had  great  power,  and 
hence,  must  be  God.  But  Jesus  says,  "  this  command- 
ment have  I  received  of  my  Father."  I  want  my  brother 
to  remember  this  point,  viz :  Jesus  received  all  power  of 
the  Father.  My  iDrother  now  states  plainly,  that  he  has 
but  a  human  sacrifice.  The  Christians  have  been 
preached  against,  by  Trinitarians,  for  years,  eiToneously 
charged  with  having  only  a  human  Saviour — a  human 
sacrifice.  But  now,  my  brother  has  renouced  all  idea  of 
a  divine  Mediator.  He  denies  the  eternal  Son  ;  that  is, 
positively  denies  that  the  Son  is  God,  or  divine ;  and 
consequently,  by  his  own  showing,  he  ought  not  to 
worship  him.  But  the  angels  of  God  worship  him,  and 
worship  him  as  the  only  begotten  Son.  Heb.  i,  8.  I 
want  my  brother  to  clear  up  this  passage.  He  now  has 
but  a  man  mediator ;  all  the  person  he  has  between  God 
and  m.an,  is  simply  a  man.  A  man  to  make  an  infinite 
atonement ;  a  man  for  a  sacrifice ;  a  man  to  trust  for 
salvation  ;  and  yet,  the  Scriptures  say,  cursed  is  he  that 
trusteth  in  man,  or  maketh  flesh  his  arm  !  "  Perhaps  my 
brother  will  not  trust  in  this  man,  with  "delegated 
power,*'  as  he  expresses  it.  I  do  not  know,  but  it  is  all 
the  security  he  has.  What  will  he  do  ?  Our  Trinitarian 
friends  have  always  contended  that  Christ  must  be  omni- 
Bcient,  to  be  able  to  judge  the  world;  but  as  a  man,  he 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


67 


could  not  have  been  omniscient ;  and  the  Son  is  only 
man,  Clarke  says,  and  ray  brother  agrees  with  Clarke ; 
consequently,  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity  is  only  a 
man,  and  they  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  of  a  man.  He  divides  Jesus  into  God 
and  man ;  but  still  it  is  the  man  that  died  for  him, 
suffered  for  him,  and  was  crucified  for  him.  A  man  is 
his  mediator  ;  it  is  a  man  that  pleads  in  heaven  for  him. 
It  is  a  man,  according  to  my  brother,  to  whom  God  says, 
Heb.  i,  8,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever." 
And  now,  I  want  to  know  whether  my  brother  will 
worship  this  man^  that  does  so  much  for  him  ;  bleeds  for 
him,  suffers  for  him,  mediates  for  him  ;  or  whether  he 
only  worships  a  part  of  his  Jesus ;  and  if  so,  what  part 
he  can  worship  and  not  be  idolatrous  ?  How  far  can  he 
go  ?  How  can  he  tell  just  where  he  must  stop  ?  Where 
do  we  cross  the  line  in  worshiping  Jesus,  and  become 
idolaters  ?  Let  my  brother  define ;  for  it  is  a  dreadful 
thing  to  be  an  idolater. 

He  says  that  the  man  Jesus  does  all  this  for  him 
simply  as  man.  Perhaps  he  will  ask  me  if  I  do  not 
believe  him  to  be  man.  I  answer,  yes,  but  not  "  very 
man,"  as  per  creed.  But  the  second  man  is  the  Lord 
from  heaven,  1  Cor.  xv,  47 — no  "  mere  man  " — no  "  very 
man it  is  no  simple  humanity  with  me,  but  the  Lord 
from  heaven.  You  can  not  help  noticing  my  brother's 
manner  in  making  quotations.  If  he  goes  to  Mosheim, 
he  is  in  danger  of  destroying  all  his  argument  by  reading 
a  line  too  much.  You  all  noticed  how  he  came  near 
losing  all  his  argument,  by  aline  too  much  from  Barnes ; 
and  refuted  all  tliat  he  said,  with  reference  to  John  x, 
34,  by  quoting  the  lohole  verse,  through  mistake.  He 
quotes  "  I  have  power  to  lay  down  my  life,"  and  stops 
short,  for  if  he  finished  the  sentence,  it  is,  "  this  com- 
mandment I  received  of  my  Father ;  "  so  my  brother  is 
obliged  to  cut  it  off,  to  save  his  argument.  Should  we  not 
abandon  a  system  which  we  would  thus  destroy  by 
quoting  a  text  too  much,  or  even  a  whole  text  ? 


68 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TEIXITY. 


I  will  now  go  on  reviewinor  his  texts  of  Scripture,  and 
it  will  be  better  for  him  also  to  follow  me,  instead  of 
going  off  on  affirmative  propositions,  as  he  is  coDstautlv 
doing.  He  quotes  1  John  v,  20,  "  And  we  know  that 
the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  ns  an  nnder- 
standing  that  we  may  know  him  that  is  tnie,  and  we  are 
in  him  that  is  true,  (even)  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This 
is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life.-'  ^s"ow,  John  says  that 
Jesus  has  given  ns  this  understanding  that  we  may  know 
him  that  is  true ;  so  as  Jesus  is  a  good  commentator, 
we  will  go  to  him.  Where,  then,  does  he  give  us  this 
understanding  ?  See  John  xvii,  1-3.  where  Jesus  says, 
Father,  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the 
only  true  God.''  Jesus  then  says  that  the  Father  is  this 
only  true  God  ;  but  my  brother  contradicts  him,  by  saying 
that  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  just  as  much  the  true 
God  as  the  Father.  Xow  were  I,  on  coming  into  this 
place,  to  inquire  for  a  blacksmith,  and  one  were  to  inform 
me  that  Richard  Roe  was  the  only  blacksmith  in  the 
place,  and  another  were  to  tell  me  that  two  other  persons 
were  just  as  traly  blacksmiths  as  he,  surely  the  latter 
would  contradict  the  former.  And  precisely  so  does  my 
brother's  theory  contradict  the  Saviour  on  this  text. 

1.  My  brother  quotes  Rev.  xix,  16.  ^'  And  he  hath  on 
his  thigh  a  name  written.  King  of  Kixgs  and  Lord  of 
Lords,''  and  says  that  he  is  called  the  word  of  God.  But 
God  is  not  called  tlie  word  of  God^  My  brother 
quotes  texts  on  my  side  of  the  question,  and  I  am  willing 
to  let  him  have  all  that  he  can  gain  from  them.  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  word  of  God,  the  Lord  of  lords,  and  the 
King  of  kings. 

2.  My  brother  next  quotes,  I  am  AJplia  and  Omega, 
Who  is  Alpha  and  Omega  ?  (See  Rev.  xx,  9-13.)  Wes- 
ley says  that  Jesus  Christ  being  Alpha  and  Omega, 
signifies  that  he  is  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  Gospel 
dispensation,  or  as  the  Apostle  says,  "  the  author  and  the 
finisher  of  our  faith."  Xot  the  first  and  last  being  that 
will  exist.  All  your  creeds  say  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of 


DiscTTssiON  o^r  the  trestty. 


69 


the  Father ;  and  Clarke  says  that  if  he  is  the  Son  of  God, 
the  Father  must  have  been  prior,  and  of  necessity 
superior  to  him.  Lnke  i,  35^  'Sow  if  the  Son  was  the 
first,  then  he  existed  before  the  Father,  and  if  he  is  to  be 
the  last  being  that  exists,  then  must  not  only  all  angels 
and  men  be  annihilated,  but  also  the  Father  and  the 
Holv  Ghost.  God  himself  must  cease  to  exist.  These 
texts  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject,  and  my  brother 
does  not  understand  them. 

3.  He  says  that  Christ  is  unchangeable.  But  his  God 
cannot  be  unchangeable,  if,  as  he  says, "  God  had  existed 
from  all  eternity  without  a  body,  but  that  he  finally  took 
a  body  ;  "  for  this  implies  a  very  great  change. 

4.  'My  brother  has  now  admitted  that  God  has  a  body. 
But  his  creed,  or  constitution  and  Discipline,  says  that 
God  has  not  a  body.  Here  he  abandons  his  creed  and 
gives  God  a  body.  This  makes  great  havoc  of  the  creed, 
which  he  promised  to  defend  ! 

5.  He  next  quotes  John  xiv,  9.  "He  that  hath  seen 
me  hath  seen  the  Father."  But,  I  ask,  what  did  Philip 
see  ?  The  invisible  spirit  or  the  outward  body  ?  Did  he 
not  simply  see  the  "  man  " — very  man — as  my  brother 
calls  it  ^  No  man  hath  seen  God,  at  any  time,  or 
can  see  him.  What  did  Philip  see,  according  to  my 
brothers  theory,  but  the  human  nature  ?  Those  visible 
eyes,  cheeks,  lips,  face ;  were  they  God's  ?  Did  Philip 
literally  see  the  Father  i  Did  he  even  see  the  inward, 
invisible  spirit  ?  Or  did  he  only  see  this  as  manifested 
in  the  flesh  ?  My  brother  felt  this  difficulty,  and  went 
to  Barnes  for  help.  But  here  again,  help  failed  him, 
for  Barnes  agrees  with  us.  He  says,  "  hath  seen  the 
Father  "  cannot  refer  to  the  essence  of  God,  but  to  the 
manifestation  of  him.  The  Son  of  God  is  the  manifesta- 
tion of  God  in  the  flesh,  the  brightness  of  his  glory 
and  the  express  image  of  his  person.  Heb.  i,  3.  As  at 
the  decline  of  day.  when  the  sun  is  sinking  behind  the 
western  hills,  while  standing  upon  the  eastern  shore  of 
the  glassy  lake,  you  see,  deep  down  in  its  crystal  waters, 


70 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


the  image  of  the  sun — yet  not  another  sun,  but  the 
brightness  of  its  glory  and  the  express  image  of  its 
appearance — so  do  we  see  God  in  Jesus  Christ.  And 
thus  the  fathers  were  wont  to  speak  of  him — and  thus  we 
also  regard  him. 

6.  My  forty-four  arguments,  my  brother  answers  barely 
by  relating  an  anecdote  of  a  man  who  wrote  forty-four 
stanzas,  all  just  alike,  so  that  to  read  one  was  to  read  all. 
But  I  leave  it  to  this  intelligent  audience,  whether  my 
forty-four  arguments  were  not  forty-four  distinct  proposi- 
tions. And  now,  I  demand  of  my  brother  to  either 
answer  them,  or  to  confess  his  inability  to  do  so. 

7.  On  the  prayer  of  Jesus,  John  17th  chapter,  my 
brother  says,  that  it  was  the  humanity  of  Jesus  praying 
to  the  divinity.  Does  he  find  this  in  the  Mormon  Bible  ? 
I  am  sure  that  it  is  not  in  ours.  Surely,  if  he  can  get 
along  so  well  without  a  Bible,  it  was  all  folly  to  give  him 
a  Bible.  What  need  has  he  of  a  Bible,  when  he  can 
find  so  much  of  his  religion  outside  of  it  ?  But  let  us 
now  have  a  sample  of  his  interpretation  of  Scripture. 
It  was  the  humanity,  he  says,  praying  to  the  divinity, 
that  is,  to  God ;  but  God  and  Christ  are  but  one  person, 
he  says,  consequently,  Christ's  prayer  was  to  his  own 
person,  and  equivalent  to  saying  "  O  myself,  glorify 
myself  with  myself,  with  the  glory  that  1  myself  had 
with  myself  before  the  world  was.''  John  chap.  xvii. 
Did  Jesus  pray  to  himself?  Did  humanity  have  gloiy 
with  God  before  the  world  was  ?  Yerse  2 2d,  The 
glory  which  thou  gavest  me."  Did  God  give  his  glory 
to  the  humanity — to  a  creature  ? 

Indeed  my  brother  says,  that  I  at  first  said  that  I  believed 
that  God  had  a  body,  and  that  I  now  say,  that  he  has  no 
hody.  Ko  I  I  quoted  Exodus,  xxxiii,  23,  to  show  that 
the  creed  contradicted  God.  The  creed  says,  God  has 
no  parts :  but  God  said  to  Moses,  "  Thou  shalt  see  my 
back  parts."  It  is  God,  and  not  me,  that  my  brother's 
difficulty  is  with.  The  question,  in  this  discussion,  is  not 
on  what  I  believe,  but  what  my  brother  believes.  Is 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


n 


his  creed  right  ?  He  quotes  John  x  34,  to  prove  that 
Christ  is  equal  with  God.  Here  the  infidel  Jews  said 
that  Christ  made  himself  equal  with  God,  but  Jesus 
denied  it,  showing  that  those  to  whom  the  word  of  God 
came,  were  called  gods ;  while  he  only  said  that  he  was 
the  Son  of  God.  But  he  says,  that  Paul  says,  that  Christ 
is  equal  with  God ;  and  wants  me  to  settle  it  with  Paul. 
No ;  Paul  did  not  say  so,  but  the  uninspired  translators ; 
as  I  proved  by  Dr.  Macknight ;  authority  which  he  dare 
not  deny,  and  of  whom  I  ever  wish  to  speak  with  pro- 
found respect ;  isa  signifies  likeness;  not  ison^  equality. 
Phil,  ii,  6.  Therefore,  my  brother  must  settle  it  on  his 
own  side  of  the  house.  I  wish  you  to  remember  that  I 
do  not  give  my  own  exposition  of  texts,  but  the  very 
highest  authority  on  the  orthodox  side !  Heb.  i,  8,  he 
Bays  that  the  Son  is  not  eternal.  What  then  means  the 
expression,  "Unto  the  Son  he  saith,  thy  throne,  O  God ! " 
Let  my  brother  settle  this.  I  never  degrade  my  Saviour 
by  calling  him  simple  humanity — very  man — human 
nature  !  He  does,  and  he  should  account  for  this.  How 
is  it  that  a  man.  is  called  God  l 

Acts  xvii,  he  quotes  that  God  will  judge  the  world  by 
iliat  man^  to  prove  that  Christ  is  very  raanP  But 
Paul,  who  uses  this  language,  says,  not  that  this  was 
very  man  ;  but  the  Lord  from  heaven.  1  Cor.  xv,  3-i. 
I  saw,  when  he  was  giving  this,  that  he  did  not  like  it 
himself.  He  was  very  slow  in  his  delivery,  and  you 
could  hardly  catch  what  it  was  that  he  meant.  "^He 
changes  his  ground,  but  can  not  remove  the  diflSculty 
out  of  his  way.  The  Bible  has  the  diflSculties,  which  they 
must  explain  away,  and  so  they  fly  from  the  Bible  to 
man,  to  explain  them.  Now,  I  believe  that  God  has 
given  us  a  Bible  which  is  not  so  full  of  difficulties,  if  we 
will  only  believe  it,  as  God  has  given  it.  But  if  we  have 
to  twist  the  Bible  to  suit  our  creed,  we  might  as  well 
have  none,  and  depend  upon  the  creed  altogether.  Eev. 
Mr.  Hunt,  a  Kew-School  Presbyterian,  was  asked  the 
difierence  between  the  New-School  and  the  Old-School. 


72 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


He  replied,  "  The  New-School  explains  the  creed  accord- 
ing to  the  Bible  ;  but  the  Old- School  explains  the  Bible 
according  to  the  creed."  I  frankly  confess  that  I  admire 
the  New-School  method  most.  But  my  brother  don't 
like  delegated  power.  Macknight  says,  on  Eom.  ix,  5, 
"  It  need  not  surprise  us  that  Christ  in  the  flesh  is  called 
God  over  all,  etc.,  since  God  hath  highly  exalted  him 
in  the  human  nature,  and  given  him  a  name  above  every 
name.  Phil,  ii,  9.  And  hath  put  all  things  under  his 
feet.  1  Cor.  xv,  27.  And  will  judge  the  world  in  right- 
eousness by  that  man,  etc.  Acts  xvii,  31.  This  looks 
like  delegated  powder  He  says  that  he  can  not  trust 
Christ,  if  he  has  delegated  power ;  what  will  he  do  ?  I 
think  that  my  brother  will  be  satisfied  with  this,  but  if  he 
desires  more,  he  can  have  it.  Again,  he  accuses  me  of 
saying  that  God  has  a  body.  He  misunderstands  me.  I 
only  contrasted  his  saying,  in  one  place,  God  has  a  body, 
and  in  another,  God  has  not  a  body. 

He  does  not  recollect  the  term.  Divine  Son  of  God  in 
the  Bible.  No  !  it  is  not  of  our  coining,  nor  is  it  in  our 
creed.  They  propose  it,  and  we  do  not  deny  it.  He 
quotes,  "  Before  Abraham  w^as  I  am."  But  as  the  Chris- 
tians all  believe  that  Christ  existed  before  Abraham,  this 
does  not  touch  our  difierence. 

But  he  says  that  he  thinks  that  he  has  some  comfort, 
(and  I  was  pleased  to  hear  him  say  so,)  in  a  supposed 
difficulty  in  my  union  of  two  natures  in  Christ,  and 
wishes  to  make  it  answer  as  an  offset  for  the  contradiction 
of  there  being  three  divine  persons  in  God.  But  my 
brother  is  mistaken.  I  know  of  no  such  union  as  that 
he  calls  the  two  natures  of  Christ.  I  know  of  no  human 
soul  in  Christ ;  he  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David,  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh,  and  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 
according  to  the  Spirit,  &c.  Rom.  i,  3.  The  first  Chris- 
tians believed  that  the  pre-existent  Spirit,  the  Son  of  God, 
was  in  Christ's  body  as  the  soul  of  that  body — a  divine, 
and  not  a  human  soul. 

He  asks,  "  Why  did  the  majority  of  the  Council  of 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


Nice  draw  up  a  Trinitarian  creed  ?"  They  did  not,  as 
all  the  world  knows.  There  is  no  Trinitarianism  in  the 
Nicene  creed.  Those  upon  whom  my  brother  relies  as 
Trinitarian  fathers,  had  not  yet  decided  whether  the 
Spirit  was  an  angel,  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father 
through  the  Son,  or  simply  the  Spirit  of  God.  See 
Neander,  i,  609. 

I  will  now  present  you  a  brief  view  of  the  difference 
between  us  and  the  Trinitarians,  by  which  you  will  see 
that  the  difference  between  them  and  us,  is  the  difference 
between  them  and  the  Bible.  Cast  away  their  sectarian 
creed  phraseology — renounce  the  unscriptural  words — 
and  we  are  one.  God  grant  that  Christians  of  all  denom- 
inations may  soon  be  one,  even  as  the  Father  and  the 
Son  are  one.    John  xvii,  22. 

Miscalled  Orthodox  Doctrines  compared  with  Chris- 
.  tian  Doctrine  and  the  Bible. 


THET  HOLD  AS  FOLLOWS. 

1.  DISCIPLINE. 

2.  Trinity. 

3.  Triune. 

4.  God  ig  Three. 

5.  God  ia  three  Lords. 

6.  His  name  three. 

7.  Holy  Three. 

8.  God  the  Son. 

9.  God  the  Spirit. 

10.  The  God  man. 

11.  God  died  for  us. 

12.  Christ  is  the  eternal 

God. 

13.  Worship  the  Trinity. 

14.  God  is  reconciled  to 

men. 

15.  God  received  the  Atone- 

ment. 

16.  The   true  worshipers 

shall  worship  the 
Trinity. 

17.  When    ve    pray  say, 

"HolyTrinity"-Epi3- 
copal  Pr.  Book. 

18.  To  us  there  is  but  one 

God,  the  Son. 

7 


WE  HOLD  A3  FOLLOWS. 

BIBLE. 

God. 

One. 

God  is  one. 

God  is  one  Lord. 

His  name  is  one. 

Holy  one. 

The  Son  of  God. 

The  Spirit  of  God. 

God  is  not  a  man. 

This  was  the  Son  of  God. 

Christ  is  God's. 

Worship  God. 

We  are  reconciled  to  God. 


BIBLE  DECrOES. 

Matt.  XV,  9. 
Gen.  i,  L 

Gal.  iii,  20. 
Deut,  vi,  4. 
Zech.  xiv,  9. 
Isaiah  xii,  6. 
John  XX,  31. 
Gen.  i,  2. 
Num.  xxiii,  19. 
Matt,  xxrii,  54. 
1  Cor.  iii,  21. 

Rev.  xxii,  9. 
Ptom.  V,  10. 


We  received  the  atonement.    Rom.  v,  11. 

The  true  worshipers  shall    John  iv,  23. 
worship  the  Father. 

When  ye   pray  say.  Our    Luke  xi,  2. 
Father,  which  art  in  hea- 
ven. 

To  us  there  is  but  one  God,    1  Cor.  viii,  6. 
the  Father  of  whom  are 
all  things. 


74 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TIUNITY. 


THEY  HOLD  AS  FOLLOWS. 

19.  The    Son    and  Holy 

Ghost  are  as  much 
the  true  God  as  the 
Father. 

20.  We  have  no  God  but 

Jesus. 

21.  Christ  is  equal  with  God. 

22.  Christ  has  all  power  in- 

dependent. 

23.  He  performed  all  his 

works  by  his  own 
power. 

24.  His  works  prove  him 

God. 

25.  He  worked  all  his  mir- 

acles in  his  own  name. 

26.  God  died. 

27.  There  is  but  one  in 

heaven. 

28.  Christ  is  very  man. 


WE  HOLD  AS  FOLLOWS.         BIBLE  DECIDES, 

Father  —  that  they  might    John  xvii,  1,  3. 
know  THEE,  the  only 
true  God. 

I  ascend  to  my  God  and  to    John  xx,  17. 
your  God. 

My  Father  is  greater  than  1.    John  xiv,  28. 
All  power  is  given  unto  me.    Matt,  xxviii,  18. 

I  can  of  mine  own  self  do    John  t,  30. 
nothing. 

He  that  believeth  on  me    John  xiv,  12. 
greater  works  tian  these 
shall  he  do. 
The  works  that  I  do,  I  do    John  x,  25. 

in  my  Father's  name. 
My  God,  why  hast  thou  for-    Matt,  xxvii,  46. 

saken  me. 
Christ  sitteth  on  the  right    Col.  iii,  1. 

hand  of  God. 
The  Gospel   preached  by    Gal.  i,  1,  11,  12. 
me  is  not  after  man. 

We  submit  this  to  my  brother,  but  in  much  love,  as 
an  excuse,  if  I  may  so  speak,  for  cleaving  to  God's  Holy 
Word  ;  that  when  he  sees  how  widely  discipline  religion 
differs  from  the  Bible,  he  may  not,  hereafter,  blame  us  for 
cleaving  to  the  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teaches,  and 
not  trusting  to  the  commandments  of  men.  Should  we 
leave  our  Scripture  doctrine  for  such  doctrines  ? ! ! 


Mr.  Flood's  Fifth  reply : 

I  think  it  proper  to  make  an  allusion  to  the  fragment 
quoted  yesterday  and  this  morning  from  Dr.  Watts,  so 
as  to  relieve  my  brother  from  the  necessity  of  quoting  it 
again ;  the  line  reads,  "  God,  the  mighty  Maker,  died." 
Poets  take  great  liberties  at  times — great  latitude  of  ex- 
pression; it  is  not,  however,  in  our  doctrine  or  consti- 
tution. No  Methodist  divine  ever  believed  that  God  died ; 
no  Methodist  minister  ever  taught  such  a  sentiment.  I 
want  to  relieve  my  brother  of  this  labor — for  it  is  giving 
him  a  great  deal  of  concern — lest  he  should  quote  !t  a 
dozen  and  one  times,  that  it  was  but  the  mere  privilege 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TEINITY. 


70 


of  a  poet ;  it  is  a  thing  not  believed  by  any  body  that  God 
died ;  it  is  not  the  doctrine  of  Methodists,  or  Pres- 
byterians, nor  is  it  received  in  any  creed  under  the 
heavens.  He  then  refers  to  my  quotation,  "  I  have  power 
to  lay  down  my  life,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again." 
He,  doubtless,  conceives  that  he  has,  at  least  to  his  own 
satisfaction,  fully  refuted  the  argument  of  the  Omnipo- 
tence of  Jesus  Christ,  "  This  commandment  have  I  re- 
ceived of  my  Father.''  jS^ow,  I  have  not  learned  that 
commandment  is,  in  itself,  power ;  if  it  is,  then,  perhaps, 
my  brother  has  furnished  a  sufficient  reason.  I  have 
power  to  lay  down  my  life,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it 
again.  It  does  not  assume  that  he  has  the  power  delegated 
to  him,  it  simply  says,  this  commandment  have  I  received 
of  my  Father.  Now,  I  design  to  show  that  the  Son  is 
not  independent  of  the  Father,  nor  the  Father  of  the  Son, 
but  they  act  as  one,  for  they  are  one.  He  says  that 
he  understands  that  they  have  denied  Clarke,  since  he 
has  gotten  them  into  this  difficulty.  Well,  what  ima- 
ginary difficulty  Clarke  has  foUen  into,  I  am  not  pre- 
pared to  say.  I  have  not  discovered,  however,  that 
Clarke  had  been  found  in  any  difficulty  during  this  dis- 
cussion ;  there  are  those  here,  I  understand,  who  delight 
in  blowing  horns.  In  advance  of  this  discussion,  it  was 
announced  that  your  humble  servant  would  be  used  up 
before  the  close  of  the  first  day,  and  might  as  well  go 
home  ;  their  next  design  is  to  put  their  old  friend  to  rout, 
having  understood  that  he  has  abandoned  his  position. 
Some  of  my  opponent's  friends  have  spoken  of  him  as  a 
second  Luther — able  to  vanquish  not  only  his  opponent, 
but  Dr.  Clarke  himself.  The  field,  they  say,  is  fully 
possessed  by  the  enemy,  and  the  standard-bearer  waves 
his  banner  under  the  name  and  title  of  Luther  the 
Second.  Mr.  S.  says.  Dr.  Clarke  diflered  from  Watts, 
and  others,  on  the  essential  deity  and  sonship  of  Jesus 
Christ,  as  well  as  relative  to  the  period  when  Christ  be- 
came properly  known  as  a  Son.  This  difficulty,  we 
tranquilly  acknowledge,  has  at  all  times  existed.  Clarke 


76 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


"was  never  officially  received  by  the  British  Conference 
as  a  Methodist  commentator — he  never  received  their 
official  sanction  ;  but  in  Europe  and  America  he  has  been 
universally  respected  for  his  greatness  of  mind,  his  ex- 
tensive enlightenment,  and  his  most  unequaled  literary 
attainments ;  and  for  the  happy  influence  which  his  com- 
mentary has  had  in  leading  to  a  correct  understanding 
of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament ;  and 
Clarke,  he  says,  abandons  our  position !  Tell  it  not  in 
Gath  /  No  author  in  the  Methodist  community,  though 
not  officially  indorsed,  taken  as  a  whole,  commands 
more  universal  respect  among  Methodist  divines  as  a 
commentator,  and  especially  as  a  book  of  reference,  than 
does  Dr.  Clarke.  Next,  says  my  opponent,  with  regard 
to  Jesus  Christ,  that  he  is  a  man — that  he  is  the  Lord 
from  heaven — not  very  man.  Man,  but  not  very  man. 
That  qualifying  phrase  seems  to  be  quite  ofi'ensive  to  my 
brother.  If  I  sought  to  strengthen,  by  a  single  word, 
the  qualifying  phrase,  the  affirmation  that  my  respected 
and  worthy  brother  w^as  a  man  of  principle  and  integrity, 
I  might  say  he  is  a  man,  a  very  man.  Should  I  be  out 
of  place  in  expressing  my  conviction  in  his  manhood,  by 
the  use  of  such  a  phrase  ?  I  leave  him  to  settle  the  dif- 
ficulty w^hich  seems  to  have  arisen.  He  says,  he  allows 
me  to  be  in  the  affirmative.  Everything  I  have  deemed 
essential  to  the  argument,  I  have  invariably  answered,  or 
shall  answer,  in  the  course  of  this  debate ;  but  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  my  brother  has  his  portfolio  here,  full  of 
manuscripts,  w^hich  he  has  been  writing,  perhaps,  for  a 
year,  or  wdiich  he  has  copied — and  I  might  style  my 
brother  so  far  a  copyist.  I  supposed  I  had  come  here  to 
meet  the  reverend  Mr.  Summerbell  on  the  merits  of  this 
important  question,  but  I  find  he  is  occupying  the  greater 
portion  of  our  time  in  reading  matters  that  are  irrelevant 
to  this  controversy ;  and  if  I  do  not  see  proper  to  follow 
him  in'  his  quotations  from  the  musty  volumes  he  has 
chosen  to  cite  from,  it  will  not  be  because  his  arguments 
are  unanswerable,  but  because  I  deem  them  irrelevant. 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRrJsITY. 


7T 


My  brother  fjoes  on  to  say,  they  have  three  Gods  aud 
not  one.  My  brother  will  'simply  allow  me  to  deny  it. 
Trinitarians  have,  in  no  age  of  the  world,  assumed  that 
they  had  three  Gods.  The  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  the 
Godhead,  is  a  doctrine  universally  advocated  and  sup- 
ported by  consistent  Trinitarians. 

He  next  alludes  to  the  text,  I  am  the  first,  and  I  am 
the  last,"  and  then  he  supposes  that  if  this  applies  to 
the  pei-son  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  must  annihilate  the  divine, 
and  depopulate  the  whole  earth ;  and  that  the  world  must 
sink  into  nonenity,  and  Christ  must  remain  the  last  and 
only  being,  if  the  passage  applies  to  him. 

I  understood  this  to  be  the  construction  he  gave  to  it. 
All  I  designed  to  prove,  was  the  essential  eternity  of 
Jesus  Christ,  "  I  am  the  beginning  and  the  end — the  first 
and  the  last.-'  I  only  used  this  passage  to  show  that 
Jesus  Christ  possessed  eternity,  being  the  beginning  and 
end,  the  first  and  the  last — that  he  existed  before  any  mere 
creature ;  in  other  words,  I  am  the  Creator.  In  saying 
I  am  the  last,  it  does  not  follow  that  others  may  not  be 
the  last  with  him  ;  for  though  it  be  true  of  angels  and  of 
men,  there  was  a  time  when  they  did  not  exist ;  and 
hence  infinity  can  not  be  applied  to  angels  or  men.  That 
which  relates  to  an  existence,  which  is  finite,  is  that 
which  will  come  to  an  end  ;  that  which  is  infinite,  is  that 
which  will  endure  for  ever.  Absolute  infinity,  therefore, 
can  not  be  applied  to  angels  and  men,  because  there  was 
a  time  when  they  did  not  exist ;  they  live  on,  and  live 
for  ever.  When  earth  shall  stagger  under  the  weight  of 
accumulated  ages,  and  the  sun  runs  his  course,  and  ceases 
to  emit  his  rays,  and  becomes  utter  darkness,  and  the 
moon  no  more  takes  her  silvery  walk  through  the  heavens, 
and  the  last  twinkling  star  shall  be  plucked  from  its 
socket,  by  the  hand  that  formed  it,  still  angels  and  men 
live  on,  and  live  for  ever. 

With  reference  to  the  term  unchangeable,  I  used  it  with 
regard  to  the  essential  existence  of  the  Deity.  He  is  an 
unchangeable  God,  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for 


78 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


ever ;  and  if  he  sees  proper  to  communicate  his  perfec- 
tions by  taking  upon  himself  human  nature,  by  which 
he  might  develop  those  perfections,  it  is  no  change  in 
the  Deity — it  is  only  resuming  the  relation  which  ren- 
ders him  tangible  to  his  creatures,  in  their  fallen  condi- 
tion; hence  our  God,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ, 
Word  or  Logos,  having  taken  upon  him  human  nature, 
remains  the  same  unchanged  and  unchangeable  God,  yes- 
terday, to-day,  and  for  ever.  lie  refers  again  to  Hebrews 
i,  8,  "Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever."  My 
brother  says  that  I  asserted  that  the  Son  is  not  God. 
When  did  his  brother  say  so  ?  I  would  like  to  know. 
How  often  shall  I  inform  my  brother  that  the  divine  na- 
ture and  human  nature  are  inseparably  united  in  one 
person,  not  in  two  separate  and  distinct  persons ;  that  the 
Word,  or  Logos^  united  the  humanity  with  the  divinity, 
in  one  person,  in  Jesus  Christ?  How  often  shall  I 
repeat  this  interesting  and  soul-cheering  truth,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  God  and  man,  united  together  in  one  person,  in 
accordance  with  the  article  which  we  are  defending  here, 
never  to  be  separated  permanently.  The  brother  thinks 
that  he  can  illustrate  this  by  an  anecdote  about  the  Old 
and  xS  ew  School  Presbyterians — the  one  interpreting  the 
creed  to  suit  the  Bible ;  and  the  other  interpreting  the 
Bible  to  suit  the  creed.  It  is  not  paying  much  of  a  com- 
pliment to  the  Old  School  Presbyterians.  He  says  he 
would  rather  favor  the  course  of  the  iSIew  School  bretliren, 
in  interpreting  their  creed  to  suit  the  Bible. 

Now  I  might  feel  the  same  toward  you ;  whether  the 
creed  lives  in  his  head,  or  in  a  book,  if  it  could  be  made 
to  suit  the  Bible,  it  would  be  a  great  gratification  to  my 
mind.  That  is  my  object,  to  lead  him  to  see  and  inter- 
pret his  views,  that  they  will  harmonize  with  tl>e  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible,  which  declare  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God, 
and  that  Jesus  Christ  is  man;  and,  again,  that  God- 
head and  manhood  are  united  together  in  the  person  of 
Christ.  Now,  if  this  Bible  truth  could  be  written  in  his 
creed,  either  in  head,  heart,  or  book,  it  would  be  a  great 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  X9 

cofisolatioh  to  our  auditors.  He  alludes  to  the  petition 
where  the  manhood  addresses  the  divinity  ;  the  Son  prays 
to  the  divinity,  saying,  "  Oli !  my  Divinity,  glorify  thou 
me,''  &c.  Now,  have  I  not  repeatedly  informed  my 
brother,  that  the  Word,  or  Logos^  which  is  the  Second 
person,  is  identified  in  the  person  with  the  Son  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Word,  or  Logos,  in  connection  with  humanity, 
which  constitutes  the  Son  of  God,  being  united  in  one  per- 
son, in  this  petition,  would  be  addressing  the  great  Source 
from  whom  emanates  the  redeeming  grace ;  he  is  the  great 
prevailing  cause  of  our  redemption.  Having  accomplished 
this,  his  work,  he  now  prays,  "Glorify  thou  me  with 
thine  own  self— with  the  glory  that  1  had  with  thee  before 
the  world  was  ;  when  I  existed  with  thee  as  the  Word, 
or  Logos ;  when  I  was  surrounded  with  the  rapturous 
song  of  heavenly  voices ;  when  I  was  not  associated,  as 
I  am  now,  with  this  world  of  woe  and  misery ;  when  I 
was  known  in  the  prospective  light  of  prophecy — as  the 
man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief ;  1  have  drank 
the  cup  of  grief  to  its  very  dregs ;  I  have  not  refused  to 
do  anything  which  thou  hast  sent  me  to  do ;  I  have  com- 
pleted the  work," — as  though  he  had  said,  as  the  pro- 
curing cause  of  man's  redemption, — "now  that  thou 
bast  expressed  thy  love  to  the  world  in  sending  me  to 
do  this  work,  glorify  thou  me  with  the  glory  I  had  with 
thee  before  the  world  was."  "For  God  so  loved  the 
w^orld,  (Jo(p  iii,  16,)  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son." 
Here  we  have  an  expression  concerning  Him  from  whom 
issued  the  plan  of  redemption,  and  the  ground  of  it; 
it  was  the  love  of  God  the  Father,  for  a  fallen  race. 
Even  Christ  himself,  in  alluding  to  these  manifestations 
of  the  Father's  love,  does  not  presume  to  explain  the 
extent  or  magnitude  of  the  benevolence  and  love  of  God 
to  man.  As  Clarke  remarks,  he  leaves  an  eternity  of 
meaning  on  the  little  particle,  "  So."  "  God  so  loved  the 
world."  Now,  this  love  having  been  fully  evinced  in 
my  submission  to  the  divine  law,  in  offering  my  life  as 
a  ransom  for  a  perishing  world.    Now,  "glorify  thou 


80 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITY. 


me,  with  the  glory  I  had  with  thee,"  ttc,  turning  to  this 
theme  of  exaltation,  "  and  of  boundless  love,  which  I 
had  with  thee  betbre  the  world  was.*'  Brother  S.  alludes 
to  the  reference  I  made  yesterday,  with  respect  to  the 
terms,  Divine  Son  of  God.  I  do  not  make  this  as  an 
objection  to  the  term.  I  merely  balanced  it  against  his, 
with  respect  to  the  term  Trinity,  which  my  brother  has 
used,  in  this  discussion,  a  number  of  times,  if  my  memory 
serves  me  right. 

With  respect  to  the  sermon  preached  here  last  night 
by  a  brother  of  our  church,  I  remark,  I  bad  hoped  my 
good  brother  Summerbell  would  have  occupied  this  pul- 
pit to  preach  what  he  conceived  to  be  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  and  he  would  have  preached  without  interruption. 
He  conceives  an  attack  was  made  upon  his  belief,  by  the 
brother  who  preached :  he  says,  if  -anything  is  to  be  ob- 
jected to,  give  it  in  open  daylight.  He  insinuates  that 
some  one  is  afraid  of  dayliglit ;  he  says,  if  objections  are 
made  let  them  form  part  of  the  debate.  It  is  an  unjust 
insinuation. 

Our  brother,  last  night,  might  have  made  some  allusion 
to  the  new  doctrines  held  by  my  brother  SummerbelPs  peo- 
ple. The  brother  who  delivered  that  sermon  asserts,  that 
Flood  did  not  request  that  he  should  preach  on  any  given 
subject.  Brother  Flood,  therefore,  stands  free ;  whatever 
may  be  the  insinuation  of  my  brother,  I  will  be  as  calm  as 
a  summer-sun — I  assure  you,  brother,  the  i^fa  of  alarm 
has  never  taken  hold  of  my  soul — so  I  hope  there  will  be 
no  concern  upon  that  subject.  If  I  scare — I  will  scare  so 
desperately  bad  that  my  legs  will  not  carry  me  away. 
My  opponent  alludes  to  what  he  conceives  to  be  our 
belief,  namely,  that  God  is  three.  We  say  God  is  one. 
He  quotes  an  array  of  passages  to  prove  he  is  one.  All 
of  which  we  believe,  I  maintain,  as  rigidly  as  any  man 
that  lives — the  unity  of  the  Godhead — of  three  persons  in 
one.  Xot  three  Gods,  nor  as  my  opponent  says,  a  great 
God  and  a  little  God. 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


8f 


Mr.  SuiiMERBELL's  Sixth  address ; 

My  brother  made  a  bad  allusion  to  my  arguments. 
I  support  my  arguments  by  the  very  highest  authority  on 
my  brother's  side:  but  my  argument  is  original.  If  he 
meant  that  I  am  a  copyist,  1  deny  it.  I  wish  to  remain  good 
friends  with  my  brother ;  but  he  must  avoid  such  charges 
in  the  future ;  if  he  is  alarmed  at  the  size  of  my  port- 
folio I  will  leave  it  at  home,  to  soothe  his  feelings.  He 
relies  upon  more  questionable  aid,  and  when  you  suppose 
him  to  be  quoting  Scripture,  he  is  reading  the  "  Scrip- 
ture Manual yet,  would  he  believe  even  that,  he  would 
relieve  me  of  much  difficulty  in  con-ecting  him.  He  now 
says  that  the  words When  God,  the  mighty.  Maker  died," 
are  only  a  poetic  effusion.  But  he  knows  that  thousands 
of  people  believe  them.  His  own  creed  teaches  the  same 
doctrine:  '^Whereof  is  one  Christ  veiy  God  and  very 
man,  which  tnily  suffered,  was  dead  and  buried."  And 
my  brother's  own  interpretation  of  Scripture  confii-ms  it. 
He  quotes  "  I  have  power  to  lay  down  my  life  and  I  have 
power  to  take  it  again,  to  prove  that  Christ  was  God." 
Christ  says  this,  commandment  have  1  received  of  my 
Father.  He  refers  to  my  saying,  that  Clarke  was  in  dif- 
ficulty; I  alluded  to  his  being  abandoned  last  night ;  I  have 
nothing  against  Clarke,  and  I  am  sure  I  do  not  wish  his 
friends  to  Ibrsake  him.  My  brother  pronounced  a  eulogy 
on  him,  which  is  very  well.  I  regard  Clarke  as  a  veiy 
learned  man,  and  an  able  commentator ;  and  although 
they  may  appeal  to  Watson,  yet  Clarke  is  a  much  more 
able  man  than  Watson,  or  Benson  ;  and  the  Methodists 
generally  so  regard  him.  Christ  is  called  man,  but  he  is 
never  called  ''very  man"  in  the  Bible.  If  they  mean, 
what  Paul  means  by  man,  why  alter  his  words  ?  If 
"very"  makes  no  difference,  why  put  it  there?  The 
Lord  is  called  a  husbsnnhnan.  and  a  ?nan  of  war,  but  he 
is  not  "veiy  man."  Gabriel  is  called  a  man,  but  he  is 
not  "  very  man."  My  brother  accuses  me  of  saying,  that 
they  have  three  Gods.  If  I  said  they  professed  to  believe 
in  three  Gods,  I  did  not  mean  it.    I  have  proved  that 


82 


DISCUSSION  OX  TEE  TFJXITT. 


thev  hold  the  Son  inferior  to  the  Father:  but  he  says, 
that  Christ,  being  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and  the 
last,  means  that  he  will  Ije  the  last  to  exist,  bnt  that 
othere  also  will  be  last  I  I  like  TTeslev's  view,  that  Christ 
is  the  first  and  the  last  in  the  GosjxjI  dispensation  ;  or  as 
the  Apostle  has  it  still  better,  that  '*  he  is  the  author  and 
finisher  of  our  faith.-'  I  still  insist  that  my  brother  tell 
us,  how  God  could  create  the  worlds  by  his  Son,  Heb.  i, 
1-3 :  if  he  had  no  Son  until  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  ? 
The  creed,  or  constitution,  and  Discipline  says,  that  God 
is  without  body ;  but  my  brother  now  says,  that  God  took 
a  l>-xiy.  He  says,  that  the  Word,  which  was  with  God, 
was  not  the  i^erson ;  but  tliat  the  7nan^  very  man,  was 
the  iXTSC'n  begotten.  Thus  making  Christ  two  persons. 
He  says,  the  Jews  rightly  considered  the  words  "Son  of 
God,''  as  equal  with  God  ;  and  yet  he  pi*onounces  the 
term  Divine  Son,  exceptionable. 

He  next  quotes,  Philip,  ii,  6.  '*  He  thought  it  not  i*ob- 
bery  to  be  equal  with  Gc>d.''  If  that  was  God,  then  God 
'•made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  became  obedient  to 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.**  ]S!^ow  is  not  that  a 
change  i  Does  my  brother  l3elieve  that  God  died  on  the 
cross  i  He  now  says,  that  though  the  two  natures  were 
inseparably  united  ;  they  were  separated  three  days  and 
three  nights.  VeiT  well  I  The  creed  says  they  were 
joined  'never  to  be  divided.  How  does  my  brother  know 
that  they  may  not  be  divided  again  ?  My  brother  doubles 
and  crosses  his  track  too  often.  One  day  it  is  one  thing ; 
and  another  day  it  is  another  thing.  He  must  realize  it, 
and  open  his  eyes  to  the  contradictory  nature  of  his  doc- 
trine. I  i-ead  my  brother  twenty -seven  distinct  propo- 
sitions, showing  how  their  docti'ine  positively  conti-adicts 
the  Bible.  I  waut  him  to  explain,  and  show  that  they  do 
not — if  he  can. 

He  says  that  the  Bible  declares  that  Jesus  is  both  God 
and  man  ;  let  him  produce  the  texts,  and  I  will  attend  to 
them. 

He  says,  that  when  Christ  prayed,  that  it  was  the  Word 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  83 

or  Logos,  praying  to  the  first  great  Cause.  Did  I  not 
tell  you  that  he  did  not  believe  in  the  equality  of  the 
Son  with  the  Father  ?  And  here  now,  he  has  God,  the 
Logos,  praying  to  the  Father ;  showing  that  they  are  not 
equal.  I  hold  different  views  of  God,  than  to  suppose 
that  lie  prays.  He  says  that  the  plan  of  salvation  origin- 
ated with  tile  Father ;  but  he  also  says,  that  Jesus  is  the 
author  of  the  gospel. 

My  brother  has  a  way  of  putting  words  into  Jesus' 
mouth,  and  speaking  for  him  ;  but  that  is  not  Scripture. 
He  says,  that  some  one  called  me  a  second  Luther ;  this 
is  the  first  I  have  heard  it.  He  says,  that  he  must  see 
deeper  waters,  etc.  I  gave  my  brother  twenty-seven  pro- 
positions on  a  paper ;  and  he  answered  one^  which  was 
not  included.  These  would  have  led  him  into  deeper 
water  had  he  sought  it.  I  will  now  read  him  sixty-one 
sentences,  and  see  if  he  will  answer  them. 

As  he  will  not  own  that  the  three  persons  are  three 
Gods,  yet  fails  to  define  what  they  are,  I  propose  now, 
to  give  him  a  number  of  sentences,  defining  what  the 
three  are,  according  to  his  theory. 

1.  He  believes  in  three  persons,  all  of  whom  are  Je- 

hovah. 

2.  Three  persons,  all  of  whom  are  God. 

3.  Three  persons,  all  first  and  last. 

4.  Three  persons,  all  Alpha  and  Omega. 

5.  Three  persons,  all  king  of  Israel. 

6.  Three  persons  to  pray  to. 

7.  Three  persons  to  honor  equally. 

8.  Three  persons  to  worship. 

9.  Three  persons  to  love  equally. 

10.  Three  persons  to  obey  equally. 

11.  Three  persons,  all  supreme. 

12.  Three  persons,  all  infinite, 

13.  Three  persons,  all  self-existent. 

14.  Three  persons  to  wear  the  crown  in  heaven. 

15.  Three  persons  to  sit  on  the  throne  in  heaven. 

16.  Three  persons  to  hold  the  scepter  in  heaven. 


84 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


17.  Three  persons,  all  equal  in  power. 

18.  Three  persons,  all  equal  in  glory. 

19.  Three  persons  equal  in  substance. 

20.  Three  persons  equal  in  eternity. 

21.  Three  persons,  each  with  a  man  added,  or  difiering. 

22.  Three  persons  to  be  atoned. 

23.  Three  persons  to  be  reconciled. 

24.  Three  persons  to  look  to  for  pardon. 

25.  Three  persons  whose  laws  are  broken. 

26.  Three  persons  sending  each  other. 

27.  Three  persons  praying  to  each  other. 

28.  Three  persons  obeying  each  other. 

29.  Three  persons  appeasing  each  other. 

30.  Three  persons  smiting  each  other. 

31.  Three  persons  giving  the  kingdom  to  each  other. 

32.  Three  persons  equal,  but  one  inferior  to  another. 

33.  Three  persons  equal,  but  one  pra^-ing  to  another. 
31.  Three  persons  equal,  but  one  exalting  the  other. 

35.  Three  persons  equal,  but  one  giving  life  to  another. 

36.  Three  persons  equal,  but  one  giving  power  to  an- 

other. 

37.  Three  persons  with  a  man  mediator. 

38.  Three  persons  with  a  human  Saviour. 

39.  Three  persons  with  a  human  sacrifice. 

40.  Three  persons  with  a  human  body  and  soul. 

41.  Three  persons  creating  the  universe. 

42.  Three  persons  giving  the  law. 

43.  Three  persons  the  God  of  Abraham. 

44.  Three  persons  giving  their  Son  for  the  salvation  of 

men. 

45.  Three  omnipotent  persons. 

46.  Three  omnipresent  persons. 

47.  Three  omniscient  persons. 

48.  Tliree  persons,  all  the  only  wise  God. 

49.  Three  persons,  all  the  mighty  God. 

50.  Three  persons,  all  the  most  high  God. 

51.  Three  persons,  all  the  eternal  God. 

52.  Three  persons,  each  the  everlasting  Father. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


85 


63.  Three  persons,  each  the  first  great  Cause. 

54.  Three  persons,  all  husband  to  the  church. 

55.  Three  persons,  all  equally  God. 

56.  Three  persons  all  equal;  so  that  if  the  Son  has  a 

man  added,  each  to  be  equal,  must  have  a  man 
added. 

57.  So,  as  the  Son  is  God,  and  a  man  more ; 

58.  The  Father  must  be  God,  and  a  man  more ; 

59.  And  the  Holy  Ghost  must  be  God,  and  a  man  more. 

60.  Three  persons  all  God,  and  a  man  more. 

And  in  conclusion,  I  will  say,  lliat  if  all  these  make 
one  God  and  no  more,  then  farewell  to  all  mathematical 
rules  for  evermore. 

In  order  to  make  the  Bible  harmonize  with  their  theory, 
they  are  forced  to  give  such  an  interpretation  to  the  texts 
referred  to  in  the  following  list,  as  to  make  them  teach 
such  absurdities  as  that  in 

John  xiv,'28,  Greater  and  less  imply  perfect  equality. 

John  xvii,  8,  The  sender  and  sent,  are  all  one 
being. 

John  iii,  16,  The  giver  and  gift  are  just  the  same 
thing.    With  and  without  body,  are  all  the  same. 

Mark  xiii,  32,  Omniscience  knows  not,  when  is  the  end 
of  the  world. 

John  V,  19,  Omnipotence  can  of  its  own  self  do  no- 
thing. 

John  xi,  15,  Omnipresence  was  glad  that  it  was  not 
there. 

Luke  vi,  12,  The  supreme  God  abode  all  night  in 
prayer. 

Luke  xxiv,  29,  The  invisible  God  was  often  seen  and 
handled. 

John  XX,  19,  The  self-existent  God  has  a  Father  and  a 
God. 

John  V,  26,  The  author  of  all  good  receives  his  life 
fi'om  another. 

John  viii,  50,  The  most  high  God  seeks  not  liis  own 
glory. 


86 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


John  vi,  38,  The  only  wise  God  came  not  to  do  his 
own  will. 

Gal.  iii,  20,  One  and  three  are  just  the  same  thing. 

Matt,  iii,  17,  Father  and  Son  are  just  the  same  being. 

Matt,  xxvii,  46,  On  the  cross,  Jesus  cried  to  himself.  . 

John  xvii,  3,  In  the  garden,  he  prayed  to  himself. 

1  John  ii,  1,  As  our  mediator  he  pleads  with  himself. 

Luke  xxii,  69,  In  heaven  he  sits  down  at  the  right 
hand  of  himself. 

Eev.  V,  7,  He  took  the  book  out  of  the  right  hand  of 
himself. 

Acts  xvii,  31,  He  is  appointed  to  judge  the  quick  and 
dead  by  himself. 

Shall  we  believe  all  these  contradictions  ?  What  then 
is  the  use  of  preaching  against  the  Roman  Catholic  ab- 
surdities, so  long  as  we  can  believe  such  as  these  ?  But 
let  us  look  at  this  system  again. 

If  Jesus  be  God,  and  there  be  no  other  God,  then  what 
is  true  of  God,  is  true  of  Jesus.  Let  us  try  this,  by  read- 
ing Jesus  instead  of  God^  in  a  few  texts ;  and  you  will 
plainly  see  that  Jesus  is  not  God. 

1.  Jesus  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  be- 
gotten Son,  John  iii,  16.    Did  he  ? 

2.  Jesus  sent  forth  his  Son  made  of  a  woman.  Did 
he? 

3.  There  is  one  Jehovah,  Jesus,  and  one  mediator  be- 
tween Jesus  and  men,  Gal.  iii,  20.    Is  there? 

4.  Stephen  saw  Jesus  standing  on  the  right  hand  of 
Jesus.    Did  he  ? 

5.  No  man  hath  seen  Jesus  at  any  time.    Have  they 
not? 

6.  Jesus  over  all  blessed  for  ever.  Is  he  over  the  Father 

and  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

7.  Jesus  created  all  things  by  his  Son.    Did  he  ? 

8.  He  offered  himself  without  spot  to  Jesus.   Did  he? 

9.  He  cried,  Jesus,  Jesus,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me? 
Did  he  ? 

10.  I  ascend  to  my  Jesus  and  to  your  Jesus.  Did  he  ? 


DISCirSSI02T  ON  THE  TRINITY.  8T 

11.  God  said,  take,  eat,  this  is  my  body.    Did  he  ? 

12.  I  want  my  brother  to  explain  these  dlflSculties  in 
his  system.  How  is  it  that  Jesus  gave  his  Son  for  us  ? 
Or  if  he  did  not ;  then,  how  is  it  that  he  is  the  God 
that  gave  his  Son^  and  yet  he  did  not  give  his  Son  \ 

If  Jesus  be  God,  then  what  is  true  of  God  is  trae  of 
Jesus ;  unless  Jesus  be  some  other  God ;  which  my  bro- 
ther will  not  admit.  *  To  say  that  Jesus  is  God,  is  easy 
enough,  but  to  prove  it  is  hard,  and  to  explain  it,  yet 
more  difficult. 

Now  if  these  difficulties  are  explained,  I  have  others 
which  I  will  present.  To  say  that  Jesus  is  God,  and  yet 
that  he  does  not  do  what  God  does,  nor  know  what  God 
knows,  and  is  not  what  God  is,  or  that  God  is  not  what 
he  is,  will  never  do.  If  one  is  begotten  of  another, 
that  which  is  begotten  can  not  be  that  which  begat. 

So  far  as  my  brother  believes  the  Bible,  we  agree  ;  but 
when  he  believes  something,  which  is  not  only  not  in  the 
Bible,  but  contradicts  it ;  there  we  difier.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  never  had  its  origin  in  the  Bible.  God 
never  spoke  the  word  ;  Jesus  never  named  it.  The  apos- 
tles never  mentioned  it ;  but  now  men  call  God,  Trinity, 
Holy  Trinity.  It  is  a  great  thing  to  name  om-  God.  We 
may  name  our  dog,  our  hoi-se,  or  our  child ;  but  the 
child  should  not  name  its  father ;  and  we  should  not  name 
our  God.  The  name  by  which  men  now  call  God,  was 
introduced  into  the  church  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
century;  and  the  doctrine  "received  (says  Mosheim)  its 
finishing  touch,"  two  hundred  years  after.  Theodosius, 
the  tenth  Christian  emperor  of  Rome,  but  the  first  who 
was  baptized  in  the  Trinitarian  faith,  was  a  great  con- 
queror, and  on  ascending  the  throne  immediately  set 
about  overturning  the  primitive  Christian  churches,  and 
establishing  the  Trinity.  One  hundred  churches  were 
taken  from  the  Christians,  and  given  to  the  Trinitarians. 
Gibbon  says — "  that  the  Arians  might  complain  with 
some  tolerable  degree  of  justice,  that  an  inconsiderable 
congi-egation  of  sectai'ies,  in  the  city  of  Constantinople, 


88 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITY. 


Bhould  usurp  the  liundred  churches,  which  they  were  in- 
sufficient to  fill,  while  the  far  greater  part  of  tlie  people 
were  cruelly  excluded  li'om  every  place  of  religious  wor- 
ship. Theodosius  was  still  inexorable;  but  as  the  angels 
who  had  protected  the  Catholic  cause,  were  only  visible 
to  the  eyes  of  faith,  he  prudently  reinforced  those  heav- 
enly legions  with  the  more  effectual  aid  of  temporal  and 
carnal  weapons  ;  and  the  temple  of 'St.  Sophia  was  occu- 
pied by  a  large  body  of  the  imperial  guards." — Gib.  iii,  7 6. 

The  Trinitarians  once  established,  a  council  was  held 
in  Constantinople,  which  gave  the  finishing  touch  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Their  own  bishop  compares 
the  council  to  wa^ps,  magpies,  cranes,  and  geese.  These 
were  the  men  who  gave  us  the  Trinity.  Oh,  my  breth- 
ren, abandon  it  as  one  of  the  relics  of  poper}^  There  is 
enough  in  the  Bible  ;  had  there  not  been,  God  would  have 
given  us  more.  God  has  not  left  us  to  manufacture  sys 
terns  of  self-righteousness, 

Mr.  Flood's  Sixth  reply: 

I  shall,  as  briefly  as  I  can,  respond  to  my  brother's  re- 
marks in  his  last  speech.  I  must  do  myself  the  justice, 
not  to  follow  him  in  all  those  numerous  repetitions,  of 
what  he  thinks  are  objections  to  our  doctrine  of  the  qual- 
ity of  the  persons  in  the  Godhead.  The  brother  set  out, 
by  complaining  that  I  had  used  the  term  copyist.  I  sug- 
gested, that  if  his  course  continued  to  be  such  as  it  had 
been,  he  might  be  open  to  the  charge ;  then  the  brother 
becomes  courageous  :  I  am  glad  to  see  it.  I  can  throw 
away  my  portfolio,  he  exclaims,  and  meet  any  man  on 
this  subject,  with  the  Bible  only.  Well,  I  have  not  ex- 
pressed the  slightest  want  of  confidence  in  his  ability ; 
but  he  complains  that  I  make  fun  of  him,  by  praising 
him,  and  comparing  him  with  Liitlier.  Xow,- 1  hope  my 
brother  will  become  better  acquainted  with  me,  and  know 
that  I  am  not  a  fun  maker ;  I  merely  alluded  to  the  fact, 
that  our  friends  had  furnished  me  with  a  respectable  op- 
ponent ;  and  that  he,  like  Luther,  would  manfully  defend 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


89 


his  views  ;  I  would  not  be  understood  as  doing  it  in  the 
light  of  fun  making,  and  hope  he  will  not  use  the  term 
any  more. 


"The  Son,  who  is  the  word  of  the  Father,  the  very  and 
eternal  God,  of  one  substance  with  the  Father,  took  man's 
nature,  in  the  womb  of  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary,  so  that 
two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  that  is  to  say,  the  Grod- 
head,  and  manhood,  were  joined  together  in  one  person, 
never  to  be  divided ;  whereof  is  one  Christ,  very  God, 
and  very  man,  who  truly  sufiered,  was  crucified,  dead, 
and  buried,  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us,  and  to  be  a 
sacrifice,  not  only  for  original  guilt,  but  also  for  actual 
sins  of  men." 

Now  this  briefly  explains  the  views  of  those  who  adopt 
the  Methodist  Protestant  faith.  He  says,  he  has  no  creed 
but  the  Bible.  I  propose  to  define  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  as  set  forth  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Frotestant  church  ;  especially  with  regard  to  the  equality 
of  Jesus  Christ  with  the  Father,  in  substance,  power,  and 
eternity.  Now,  I  do  hope  this  audience  will  not  allow 
their  attention  to  be  diverted  from  the  question  at  issue. 
The  brother  tells  you,  that  this  doctrine,  with  regard  to 
the  equality  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  contrary  to  the 
teaching  of  the  word  of  God  ;  I  stand  here  to  demonstrate 
the  truth  of  that  doctrine.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
with  regard  to  the  equality  of  Jesus  Christ  with  the 
Father,  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  teaching  of  the 
word  of  God. 

Revelations  i,  18 :  "/  am  he  that  liveth  and  was  dead ; 
and  behold,  I  am  alive  for  evermore."  Now  we  submit 
upon  this  text  the  following  proposition:  He  alludes 
to  the  divine  nature,  as  though  he  had  said,  I  am  the 
living  one.  In  the  second  part,  he  alludes  to  the  human 
nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  he  that  w^as  dead  ;  this  alludes 
to  the  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  dead ; 
the  divine  nature  could  not  die  —  he  who  never  began 
to  live  could  never  die.    The  third  part  alludes,  also,  to 


second  article  of  our  religion. 


8 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


the  fact,  that  he  is  now  alive;  "I  am  alive  forever- 
more."  He  who  is  the  truth  itself  sets  his  own  amen  to 
it,  and  he  requires  of  us  that  we  should  set  our  seal  to  it, 
by  believing.  Mr.  S.  then  charges  me  with  saying,  that 
God  had  no  Son  until  Christ  was  born.  I  have  no  recol- 
lection of  saying  so.  The  angels  were  the  sons  of  God, 
they  are  represented  as  shouting  for  joy  at  the  birth  of 
Christ.  Again,  men  are  declared  to  be  the  sons  of  God ; 
but  there  is  a  peculiar  sense  in  which  Christ,  the  man, 
is  the  Son  of  God,  which  is  not  applicable  to  other 
created  intelligences ;  he  is  the  only  begotten  of  the 
Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth ;  hence  Christ  is  the  only 
begotten  Son  of  God.  It  is  thus  I  understand  it,  what- 
ever may  be  the  views  of  those  who  believe  in  the  eter- 
nal Sonship  of  Christ,  that  the  miraculous  conception 
and  incarnation  of  the  Word,  or  Logos,  by  which  the 
humanity  and  divinity  became  united,  never  to  be  per- 
manently separated ;  and,  hence,  in  this  allusion  he  is 
spoken  of  as  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  Again,  he 
says,  we  do  not  believe  in  the  equality  of  the  Father  with 
the  Son,  and  assumes  that  a  higher  estimate  is  set  upon 
the  character  of  Jesus  Christ  by  Ms  Society.  Did  you 
notice  that  distinction  :  "  The  Christian  places  a  higher 
estimate,"  &c. 

There  seems  to  be  something  of  an  insinuation  that 
those  of  other  societies  are  not  Christians — it  seems  to 
indicate  something  of  this  kind.  I  will  not  be  unchari- 
table, however,  in  presuming  to  know  what  may  be  the 
personal  views  of  my  brother  upon  this  point. 

TVe  maintain  that  Jesus  is  equal  with  the  Father ;  this 
is  the  very  position  which  I  am  here  to  prove,  and  which 
he  is  here  to  disprove,  with  regard  to  the  equality  of 
Jesus  with  the  Father,  in  substance,  power,  glory,  and 
eternity.  John  i,  1,  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word, 
and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God." 
Now,  I  assume  that  the  Word,  or  Logos,  which  in  the 
beginning  was  with  God,  "  was  God,"  and  that  Jesus  is 
equal  in  substance,  power,  glory,  and  eternity,  with  the 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


Father,  for  he  is  God.  I  design  to  invite  yonr  attention 
to  Mr.  Henry's  note  on  this  passage. 

John  i,  5, 1  to  3.  The  other  Evangelists  leave  us  to 
collect  the  divine  dignity  of  Christ  from  his  miracles  and 
doctrine,  and  from  the  various  declarations  and  displays 
of  his  glory,  and  perfections  which  they  record ;  but  John 
opens  his  Gospel  with  an  express  avowal  and  statement 
of  this  fundamental  truth.  He  declares  that,  'In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word.'  Before  the  Word  had  a  begin- 
ning, the  Word  existed.  Xothing  could  precede  time, 
but  an  immeasurable,  incomprehensible  eternity.  Time 
began,  when  the  creation  was  called  forth  into  existence 
by  the  Word  himself,  and  in  this  beginning  '  the  Word 
was,'  that  is,  from  all  eternity.  Critics  have  shown  that 
there  is  an  important  diflerence  between  'i'/i  the  begin- 
ning,' and  ^frora  the  beginning  ;'  yet,  the  context  moro 
generally  fixes  the  meaning.  '  The  devil  was  a  mur- 
derer,' or  manslayer  '  from  the  beginning ;'  but  this  he 
could  not  be,  ere  man  existed.  Some  imagined  that  the 
Evangelist  refen-ed  to  the  speculations  of  Plato  and  his 
disciples,  in  the  term  the  Word,  or  the  Logos,  which 
that  philosopher  used  ;  but  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would 
at  all  countenance  such  reveries,  which  seem  originally 
to  have  been  borrowed  from  Eevelation,  though  they 
were  at  length  so  distorted  and  darkened,  as  to  be  little 
better  than  atheism.  The  Jews  were  constantly  taught, 
in  their  synagogues,  that  '  the  Word  of  God '  was  the 
same  as  God,  and  that  by  the  Word  all  things  were 
made  ;  which,  undoubtedly,  was  the  cause  why  St.  John 
delivered  so  great  a  mystery  in  so  few  words,  as  speaking 
unto  them,  who  at  the  first  apprehension  understood  him. 
Only  that  which  they  knew  not  was,  that  this  Word  was 
made  flesh,  and  that  this  Word  made  flesh  was  Jesus 
Christ.'  Bp.  Pearson.  The  same  learned  divine  shows, 
that  this  way  of  speaking  was  in  use  before  Platonism 
was  at  all  introduced  among  the  Jews :  and  Jerome,  in 
his  note  on  Ex.  i,  Stt,  says,  that  the  Septuagint  translates 
the  words  rendered  in  our  version,  'The  voice  of  the 


92 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


Almighty,'  the  voice  of  the  Logos^  or  second  person  in  the 
sacred  Trinity.  The  clause,  however,  is  at  present  want- 
ing in  some  copies  of  the  Septuagint ;  and  in  others,  the 
words  tH  %oyH  do  not  appear  to  be  a  translation  of  the 
original  word  Shaddai^  but  of  that  rendered  speech, 
'As  the  voice  of  a  mighty  one :  when  they  went,  there 
was  the  voice  of  speech,  like  the  voice  of  an  host.'  The 
word  may,  probably,  be  taken  in  its  ordinary  significa- 
tion ;  thougli  w^e  may  certainly  conclude,  that  this  was 
the  appearance  of  the  Second  Person  in  the  sacred  Trin- 
ity; both  because  he  appears  under  the  resemblance  of  a 
man,  and  what  hath  been  said  upon  this  subject  from 
Is.  vi,  1. 

"  But  the  apostle  spoke  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  could  refer  to  no  higher  authority  than  his 
own:  he  expressly  states  the  doctrine  m  the  way  of  a 
divine  testimony^  and  we  should  endeavor  to  ascertain 
his  meaning,  according  to  the  most  simple  and  obvious 
interpretation  of  his  words,  and  explain  occasional  inti- 
mations on  the  same  mysterious  subject  hy  them^  and 
not  them  by  others.  The  title  of  'the  Word'  is  peculiar 
to  this  Evangelist,  at  least  with  but  few  exceptions ;  it 
may  signify  reason^  and  is  nearly  equivalent  to  loisdom^ 
as  speaking  by  Solomon.  Probably  the  title  is  given  to 
Christ,  because  by  him  the  perfections,  will,  and  secret 
counsels  of  God  are  made  known  to  man,  especially,  his 
hidden  and  deep  thoughts  of  wisdom,  and  love  in  our 
redemption,  even  as  a  man  communicates  his  secret  pur- 
poses and  counsels  to  others  by  his  v^orfZ,  and  by  him 
exclusively,  for  all  prophets  shine  by  his  light,  and 
report  his  testimony.  It  follows  '  The  Wokd  was  w^ith 
God,'  as  the  apostle  had  not  mentioned  Christ  as  the  Son 
of  God,  so  he  did  not  say  the  Father,  but  God.  The 
Word  existed  and  was  with  God,  when  no  creature  was 
produced. 

"  'And  the  Word  was  God.'  Christianity  was  doubt- 
less intended  to  deliver  the  world  from  idolatry,  that 
principal  work  of  the  devil;  it  would,  therefore,  have 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


93 


been  the  most  palpable  absurdit}^  to  suppose  that  one  of 
its  divinely  inspired  teachers  should  use  expressions  at 
the  openinor  of  his  gospel,  as  were  exactly  suited  to  draw 
the  whole  Christian  church  into  a  new  species  of  idolatry, 
and  which  could  scarcely  fail  to  have  that  effect.  Yet 
this  must  be  the  consequence  of  supposing  the  person  of 
whom  he  here  spoke  to  have  been  a  mere  creation,  how- 
ever highly  exalted.  For  though  the  article  is  not  pre- 
fixed to  the  original  word  translated  God,  yet  that  term 
is  so  frequently  used,  and  even  by  this  Evangelist,  without 
the  article,  for  God  the  Father,  that  scarcely  the  shadow 
of  an  objection  can  be  drawn  from  that  circumstance. 
And  what  can  we  understand  by  this  testimony,  'the 
Word  was  God,'  but  that  he  was  possessed  of  the  same 
divine  nature  and  perfections  with  the  Father — parti- 
cipated the  same  gloiy  and  felicity,  and  was  in  every 
respect  equally  entitled  to  the  adoration  of  all  rational 
creatures,  that  should  ever  exist  as  that  God,  with  whom  he 
was,  and  the  only  objection  to  this  inference  seems  to  be 
that  it  is  incomprehensible ;  but  it  should  carefully  be 
noted,  that  they,  who  will  not  admit  of  it  on  this  account, 
and  for  other  reasons,  are  driven  into  hypothesis,  the 
absm-dity  of  which,  at  least,  is  perfectly  incomprehensi- 
ble. Every  succeeding  generation  of  opponents,  hitherto, 
have  been  induced  to  give  up  the  system  of  their  prede- 
cessors as  indefensible,  or  at  least,  as  less  specious  than 
more  modern  discoveries  or  refinements,  and  many  from 
age  to  age  contend  each  for  his  own  scheme  of  getting 
over  the  difiiculties  here  thrown  in  the  way.  Yet  their 
utmost  improvements  on  this  subject,  scarcely  need  any 
other  answer  than  to  compare  them  with  this  divine 
testimony,  to  which  they  must  be  in  everlasting  opposi- 
tion. The  inspired  writer,  however,  was  equally  careful 
to  establish  the  personal  distinction  as  the  eternal  God- 
head of  the  Word,  and,  therefore,  he  adds  again,  '  The 
same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God.'  Having  thus 
stated  the  deity  and  distinct  personality  of  the  Word,  he 
proceeds  to  ascribe  all  the  work  of  creation  to  Him,  as 


94 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITT. 


working  in  perfect  union  of  will  and  purpose  with  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  this  he  is  so  explicit  as  to  use  a  repetition  which,  at 
first  sight,  may  appear  needless,  '  all  things  were  made 
by  him ; '  but  the  word  all  is  sometimes  used  where 
absolute  universality  is  not  meant,  therefore  he  adds, 
that,  '  without  him  was  not  anything  made  that  was 
made,'  or,  not  so  mucli  as  one  single  being for  so  the 
original  words  imply.  In  what  language  can  a  divine 
power  and  operation  of  the  great  Creator  be  more  em- 
phatically described,  or  what  could  have  been  said,  better 
suited  to  lead  every  one  to  look  up  to,  and  adore  '  the 
Word,'  as  his  Omnipotent  Maker  and  Sovereign  Lord. 
To  suppose  him  to  be  a  mere  creature,  is  to  suppose 
infinite  power  and  perfection  communicable  to  a  creature, 
and  a  whole  universe  standing  in  the  same  relation  to  a 
creature,  as  they  do  to  the  infinite  and  eternal  God. 
And  to  assert  that '  the  Word '  was  only  an  instrument 
or  subordinate  agent  in  creation,  beside  the  absurdity  of 
it,  expressly  contradicts  the  Scripture,  which  says  that 
'  Jehovah  stretcheth  forth  the  heavens  alone  and  spread- 
eth  abroad  the  earth  by  himself,  and  that  he  will  not  give 
his  glory  to  another.'  Indeed,  it  is  self-evident  that  '  he 
who  built  all  things  is  God,  in  the  strictest  and  fullest 
meaning  of  the  word  ;  yet  this  doctrine  is  not  grounded 
on  any  single  expression,  but  on  a  combination  of  very 
many,  and  it  will  therefore  appear  more  incontrovertible 
as  we  proceed.'  " — Scott's  note,  on  John  i. 

Here  you  perceive  what  is  the  position  we  have  been 
laboring  to  maintain.  The  essential  equality  of  the  Son 
with  the  Father  and  Word,  or  Logos,  in  substance,  power, 
glory  and  eternity  ;  and  how  it  is,  that  my  brother  can 
repeat  so  frequently,  as  he  has  thought  proper  to  do,  that 
he  holds  the  Son  of  God  in  higher  esteem  than  his 
opponent,  I  cannot  possibly  conceive.  I  hold  that  the 
Word,  or  Logos,  can  have  no  superior  power  in  the  whole 
universe,  and  that  there  can  be  no  glory,  equal  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  (Jhost,  dwelling 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


96 


bodily  in  Jesiis  Christ.  He  then  proceeds  with  this 
protracted,  syllogistic  statement,  or  proposition,  putting 
words  into  our  mouth,  and  then  uttering  things  that  he 
conceives  are  necessary  absurdities,  consequent  upon  the 
position  that  he  assumes  we  occupy.  He  says  that  three 
persons  hold  the  scepter;  that  three  persons  wear  the 
crown  ;  that  three  persons  do  this,  and  three  pei*sons  do 
that ;  we  say,  but  one.  I  will  inform  my  good  brother, 
that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  perform  functions 
that  are  proper  to  them,  as  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
in  the  great  work  of  human  redemption.  Hence  the  use 
of  this  phrase,  however  profitable  it  may  be  to  my  oppo- 
nent, to  misrepresent  our  views,  I  shall  pass  them  by,  as 
by  no  means  touching  the  essential  proposition  occupied 
by  the  believers  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  especially 
with  regard  to  the  equality  of  J esus  with  the  Father.  I 
have  no  inclination  to  pass  over  anything  which  may  be 
regarded  as  worthy  of  the  argument. 

He  closes  by  inquiring,  shall  we  believe  these  contradic- 
tions ?  Now  it  may  be  very  convenient  for  my  brother  to 
make  a  system  of  divinity  for  his  opponent,  and  having 
set  up  the  standard,  he  says  (this  is  their  faith.)  and  then 
he  has  the  exquisite  pleasure  of  demolishing  the  creature 
of  his  own  imagination.  This  may  be  his  coui-se,  but  I 
do  not  think  it  would  be  profitable  for  me,  or  my  doctrine, 
and  therefore  I  will  not  follow  in  his  track.  He  refers  to 
Christ  standing  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  when  Stephen 
prayed  in  the  hour  of  his  agony,  "  Lord  Jesus,  receive 
my  spirit."  In  connection  with  that  prayer,  he  declares 
he  saw  Jesus  standing  at  the  right  hand  of  God  ;  and  if 
Jesus  is  God,  then  he  says  of  Christ  he  saw  Jesus  stand 
at  the  right  hand  of  Jesus.  Xow  Jesus  Christ,  in  his 
character  as  a  mediator,  is  represented  as  occupying  this 
position — the  i-ight  hand  of  God.  He  is  in  the  immedi- 
ate favor  of  God.  He  is  in  intimate  communion  with 
the  divinity,  and  is  in  the  presence  of,  or  at  the  right 
hand  of  God ;  that  is  a  position  of  divine  favor,  and  in 
this  position  Stephen  saw  him,  and  prayed,  ''Lord  Jesus, 


96 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


receive  my  spirit."  Did  be  pray  to  an  angel,  having  a 
limited  power  ?  Ko !  it  was  at  a  period  when  he 
required  the  ahnighty  arm  to  be  extended  to  him.  Did 
he  appeal  to  any  departed  saint  ?  'No !  none  of  these 
relics  of  Popery  were  appealed  to.  Jesus  Christ,  in  his 
character  as  God  and  man,  having  the  sympathies  of 
human  nature ;  he  knew  that  Christ  loved  him  in  his 
affliction,  that  in  the  power  of  Jehovah  he  was  willing 
to  trust  himself  in  his  hands,  if  life  ceased,  and  his  body 
failed,  in  full  confidence  he  committed  himself  to  the 
arms  of  his  Saviour,  and  with  more  than  lightning  speed, 
his  spirit  was  borne  to  the  compassionate  bosom  of  Christ. 

Mk  Summerbell's  Seventh  address  : 

My  friends,  I  wish  you  to  remember,  that  their  creed 
teaches  that  God  died ;  and  their  hymn  says, 

"  When  God,  the  mighty  Maker,  died. 
For  man,  the  creature's,  sin." 

But  my  brother  says,  that  this  is  merely  poetical  license, 
and  that  no  Methodist  clergyman  believes  that  divinity 
died.  Very  well !  we  will  see.  I  now  hold  in  my  hand 
a  Methodist  book  of  sermons,  by  Rev.  T.  H.  Stockton, 
one  of  the  most  eminent  orator's  in  the  Methodist  Pro- 
testant church.    Let  us  see  what  he  says. 

Bible  Alliance,  p.  120,  "  In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was 
God — all  things  were  made  by  him,  and  without  him 
was  not  anything  made  that  was  made.'  'How  was  that  V 
'  Methinks  I  hear  the  communings  of  God  and  the 
Word — after  the  sin  of  man ;  and  thus  the  Word  ad- 
dresses God ;'  '  Was  it  not  by  me  that  thou  didst  create 
all  things,  that  thou  didst  make  man  ?  Love  may  suffer 
as  well  as  work ;  let  love  resort  to  suflering  by  me ;  let 
man  live.'  And  thus  God  replies  to  the  Word  ;  '  How 
canst  thou  bear  to  become  obedient  unto  death  ?  how 
canst  thou  bear  even  to  die  on  the  cross  i '  "  P.  122. 

This,  remember,  is  the  pre-existent  Logos,  or  Word — 
the  Son  before  the  incarnation.    This  is  my  brother's 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


97 


God  ;  the  second  person,  to  whom  God  says,  "  How  canst 
thou  bear  to  die  on  the  cross  ? " 

It  is  not  necessary  to  bring  up  all  the  clergymen  in  the 
world.  My  brother  said,  tliat  no  Methodist  clergyman 
believed  that  God  died.  Mr.  Stockton  is  of  his  own 
church,  and  is  good  authority ;  good  authority  for  me 
against  my  brother.  And  he  is  one  of  their  most  emi- 
nent ministers.    As  an  orator,  I  know  not  his  superior. 

I  will  now  notice  John  i,  1.  I  could  not  see  the  force 
of  my  brother's  argument  against  the  Christians,  on  this 
text.  It  says  nothing  about  the  Trinity.  Isaiah  ix,  6, 
says,  "  that  Jesus  shall  be  called  the  mighty  God." 
Philip,  ii,  9,  says,  that  he  "  should  receive  a  name  which 
is  above  every  name."  And  Heb.  i,  4,  says,  that  "  he 
by  inheritance  obtained  a  more  excellent  name  than  the 
angels  ;  "  so  that  he  gets  the  name  God,  by  inheritance 
from  his  Father,  (and  it  denotes  his  nature,)  just  as  every 
son  receives' his  father's  name.  God  gives  it  to  him,  say- 
ing, "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever,  a  scepter 
of  righteousness  is  the  scepter  of  thy  kingdom;  for  thou 
hast  loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity,  therefore 
God,  even  thy  God^  hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of 
gladness  above  thy  fellows."  Such  language  as  this 
could  never  be  addressed  to  the  supreme  God.  Gabriel, 
interpreted,  is,  mighty  God,  and  Elijah,  is  God  Jehovah, 
or  God  the  Lord  ;  why  then  should  not  the  Son  be  called 
by  his  Father's  name  ? 

The  text  reads,  John  i,  1,  "  EX  ap;^^  r^v  6  xoyo?,  xal  6  ^oyoj 
ijv  Ttpoj  tov  ©fov,  xai  Qsb?  '/jv  6  ?.oyoj."  That  is,  "  In  the  be- 
ginning was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  the  God, 
and  the  Word  was  God."  Was  God,  is  without  the 
article  tov  (the).  Logos  signifies  a  word,  as  Matt,  viii,  8, 
"  Speak  the  word  (-koyov)  only."  The  same  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God.  So  Paul  declares  that  "Aaron 
paid  tithes  to  Melchizedec,  being  yet  in  the  loins  of  his 
father  Abraham."  John  says,  that  his  design  in  writ- 
ing this  Gospel,  was  that  we  might  believe  that  "Jesus 
is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  John  xx,  31.  I  like  my 


98 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


brother's  comment  by  Henry ^  very  well ;  i.  e.,  "  Word 
signifies  voice — that  is,  voice  of  God  ;"  and  also  the  ref- 
erence to  Proverbs,  chap,  viii,  where  wisdom  is  personi- 
fied as  being  with  God  in  the  beginning,  or  ever  the 
earth  was."  This  Word,  or  Logos,  my  brother  says,  is 
the  second  person  in  the  Trinity  ;  but  denies  that  it  was 
the  Son.  Who  then  was  it  ?  We  believe  that  Christ  is 
truly  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  he  came  out  from  God ; 
and  this  text  applied  to  him,  proves  his  divine  nature. 
That  the  Son  of  God  is  called  God,  we  have  never  denied. 
Paul  says,  that  "  there  are  many  that  are  called  Gods, 
both  in  heaven  and  in  earth  ;  but  unto  us  there  is  but 
one  God  the  Father."  1  Cor.  viii,  5.  This  text,  as  applied 
to  Christ,  also  proves  his  pre-existence.  Some  under- 
stand it  as  though  it  read,  represents  God^  as  my  brother 
interpreted  John  xiv,  9.  Also,  as  all  Protestants  inter- 
pret, "  This  is  my  body ;"  "  The  seven  lean  kine  are 
seven  years  of  famine  ;"  "  The  seven  stars  are  the  angels 
of  the  seven  churches ;"  "and  the  seven  golden  candle- 
sticks, are  the  seven  churches."    Rev.  i.  10. 

Macknight,  on  Rom.  ix,  5,  thinks,  "  that  Christ  in  the 
flesh  is  called  God  over  all,  because  God  hath  highly  ex- 
alted him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every 
name."  Storr  and  Flatt  think,  that  "  in  consequence  of 
the  union  of  the  man  Jesus  with  the  Logos,  the  man  is 
God,  (p.  420)  and  has  divine  honor,  and  is  Lord  over  all." 
1  Sam.  XX,  12,  "  Jonathan  said  unto  David,  O  Lord  God 
of  Israel,"  &c.  So  that  if  they  can  make  the  man  Jesus 
God,  and  David  is  called  God  ;  they  need  not  object  to 
the  Son  of  God  being  called  God. 

But  what  do  they  make  of  this  text  ?  Professor  Stew- 
art says,  "  The  Logos  was  with  God ;  i.  e.,  with  the 
Father."  "  This  is  capable  of  no  tolerable  interpretation, 
without  supposing  that  the  Logos,  who  was  with  God, 
was  in  some  respect  or  other,  different  or  diverse,  from 
the  God  with  whom  he  was ;  and,  therefore,  by  no  means 
to  be  confounded  with  him."  "  If  a  man  should  gravely 
assert,  that  the  wisdom  or  power  of  Peter  is  with  Peter, 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


99 


and  add,  the  wisdom  and  power  of  Peter  are  Peters ; 
with  what  class  of  mystics  would  we  rank  him  ?  What 
could  be  the  object  of  John,  in  asserting  that  the  Logos 
was  loith  God  ?  I  answer,  to  be  with  one,  indicates  con- 
junction, familiarity,  society.  The  only  'begotten  Son  is 
said  to  be  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  which  is  a  phrase 
of  similar  import.  Christians  are  promised,  as  the 
summit  of  their  felicity,  that  they  shall  be  with  God." — 
Stewart's  "  Society"  proyes  a  plurality  of  beings. 

"We  believe  that  the  Son  is  the  brightness  of  the 
Father's  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person ;  as 
the  image  of  the  bright  sun  is  seen  truly  reflected  in  the 
glassy  lake,  so  in  Jesus  all  the  Fathers  glories  shine.  It 
seems  to  me,  that  the  great  difiiculty  upon  this  text,  is 
among  Trinitarians.  They  cling  to  it  because  of  the  sound 
of  words.  Suppose  it  were  admitted  that  Jesus  were  truly 
a  second  supreme  or  subordinate  God,  (which  it  can  never 
be)  even  then  it  would  not  suit  them,  for  they  reject  the 
Nicene  creed,  "  God  of  God,"  on  this  very  ground.  They 
know  not  what  to  make  of  Jesus.  The  creeds  teach  that 
he  was  a  Son  begotten  before  all  worlds ;  but  to  secure 
the  supreme  Deity  they  reject  the  Son.  But  the  Apostle 
says,  that  "there  is  none  other  God  but  one,  the  Father," 
1  Cor.  viii,  4r-6  ;  and  we  like  Paul's  creed  best.  Let  me 
read  a  little  more  from  their  own  authors.  Clarke  ap- 
proves of  the  docti'ine  of  Philo  the  Jew,  on  the  Logos, 
and  gives  a  compendium  of  his  views  of  Christ,  of  which 
I  agree  in  the  following  : 

"The  Logos  is  the  Son  of  God  ;  the  first  begotten  of 
God ;  the  image  of  God ;  superior  to  angels  ;  superior 
to  all  the  world ;  by  whom  the  world  was  created ;  the 
great  substitute  of  God ;  the  light  of  the  world ;  who 
resides  in  God  ;  esteemed  the  same  as  God.  The  Logos 
is  eternal ;  he  beholds  all  things ;  unites  and  supports  all 
things  ;  nearest  to  God  without  any  separation ;  free 
from  all  taint  of  sin  ;  presides  over  the  imperfect  and 
weak.  The  Logos  is  a  fountain  of  wisdom  ;  a  messenger 
sent  from  God  ;  the  advocate  for  mortal  man ;  he  ordered 


100 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


and  disposed  all  things;  the  shepherd  of  God's  flock; 
the  physician  who  heals  all  evil ;  the  seal  of  God  ;  sure 
refuge  of  those  who  seek  hira,"  &c.  To  this  the  Chris- 
tians do  not  object,  though  not  worded  in  Scripture 
language ;  but*  they  cannot  admit  with  Clarke,  that  the 
Logos  is  a  "  second  divinity."  Thus  Clarke  proves  too 
much  for  my  brother.  Clarke  on  John  i,  1.  Let  us  now 
hear  from  another  orthodox  work  of  the  highest  Lutheran 
authority :  Storr  &  Flatt's  Biblical  Theology,  by  S.  S. 
Schmucker,  D.  D.,  second  edition,  Andover,  1836, 
of  Gettysburgh,  Pa.  "  Another  reason  why  the  name 
'  Son  of  God '  is  given  to  the  man  Jesus,  is  because, 
according  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  he  is  partaker  of  his 
divine  perfections."  "  The  perfection  and  dignity  which 
are  conferred  on  the  man  Jesus,  by  this  union,  is  seen 
most  clearly  in  his  present  state  of  exaltation,  for  it  would 
have  been  impossible  that  this  man  could  have  been 
raised  to  so  great  an  elevation,  that  the  divine  govern- 
ment and  divine  honor  could  have  been  conferred  on  him, 
and  he  have  been  made  Lord  over  all ;  nor  could  '  all 
power  in  heaven  and  on  earth'  have  been  transferred  to 
him,"  cfec,  pp.  418-422. 

It  seems  very  easy  to  make  Gods,  according  to  this 
theory.  Every  person  can  see  at  a  glance  that  it  is  not 
the  Supreme  God  who  is  here  deified,  but  a  mmi  is  taken 
into  union  with  the  divine  Son  and  called  God,  Lord, 
etc.  They  should  be  careful  how  they  criticise  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Christians.  As  the  rays  of  light  striking 
upon  yonder  wall  we  call  the  sun,  without  meaning  that 
they  are  literally  the  luminary  from  which  they  emanate, 
so  the  divine  penman  calls  the  brightness  of  God's  glory, 
(Heb.  i,  2,)  God,  without  meaning  that  it  is  literally  the 
God  whose  brightness  it  is.  I  will  call  your  attention  to 
the  descriptions  which  are  given  of  men,  and  wish  you 
to  notice  especially,  that  were  such  language  found  in 
the  Bible,  connected  with  the  name  of  Jesus,  they  would 
surely  take  it  to  prove  his  Deity.  I  will  first  read  from 
Mr.  Stockton,  one  of  my  brother's  own  ministers.  He 
says — and  the  language  is  glowing  and  beautiful : — 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  101 


T.  H.  Stockton,  p.  49.  "  There  is  not  a  doubt,  or  the 
shadow  of  a  doubt,  to  obstruct  my  steps,  or  darken  my 
path.  Like  an  exile,  on  returning,  I  hail  my  home.  Like 
a  mariner,  I  have  quit  the  stormy  sea,  for  the  quiet  haven  ; 
and  have  only  to  unlade  and  distribute  the  gathered  treas- 
ures of  other  and  richer  lands.  Like  a  warrior,  I  have 
served  my  term,  and  am  released  from  the  battle ;  at 
liberty  to  pitch  my  tent  among  the  husbandmen,  to 
beat  my  sword  into  a  plowshare  and  my  spear  into  a 
pruning-hook.  Or  like  an  anointed  high-priest,  in  his 
garments  of  beauty  and  glory,  I  am  once  more  permitted, 
as  in  due  course,  to  retire  from  the  tumult  of  the  world  to 
the  serenity  of  the  temple :  from  the  fields  of  labor,  from 
the  marts  of  commerce,  and  from  the  palaces  of  power, 
to  the  incense  of  the  altar,  to  the  silence  of  the  shrine,  to 
the  sympathy  of  the  cherubim,  to  the  splendor  of  the 
Shekinah,  and  to  the  mercy  of  the  Oracle  ;  not  however 
for  my  own  advantage  alone,  but  that  I  may  come  forth 
again  with  my  brow  blazing  with  the  name  of  Jehovah^ 
and  my  breast  blazing  with  the  names  of  the  tribes  of  his 
people ;  with  my  eyes  sparkling,  my  cheeks  flushed,  my 
breath  fragrant,  my  voice  musical,  and  my  lifted  hands 
all  trembling  with  the  rapture  of  his  once  blood-bought, 
but  now  free  and  common  blesssing.  *  *  *  *  I 
ask  audience,  I  claim  audience,  I  challenge  in  particular 
the  blind  that  they  may  see,  the  deaf  that  they  may  hear, 
and  the  dumb  that  they  may  speak,  and  the  lame  that 
they  may  leap,  and  the  sick  that  they  may  revive,  and 
the  leprous  that  they  may  be  clean,  and  the  paralytic 
that  they  may  be  composed,  and  the  maimed  that  they 
may  be  whole,  and  the  lunatic  that  they  may  be  calm, 
and  the  demoniac  that  they  may  be  dispossessed,  and  the 
imprisoned  that  they  may  be  free,  and  the  dead  that  they 
may  rise,  and  all  to  give  audience.  *  *  *  *  ^^ay, 
more,  I  claim  the  audience  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  all 
the  worlds,  of  all  the  systems  in  all  the  imiverse.  I 
claim  the  audience  of  all  with  no  apology  to  make  to 
any ;  the  audience  of  all  sages  and  saints,  of  all  angels 


102 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITT. 


and  archangels ;  of  all  cherubim  and  seraphim,  of  all 
thrones,  and  dominions,  and  principalities,  and  powers, 
of  all  the  morning  stains  that  fill  immensity  with  the  light 
of  joy,  and  of  all  the  sons  of  God  that  till  eternity  with 
the  music  of  praise ;  but  with  no  apology  for  any  sage 
or  saint,  for  any  angel  or  archangel,  for  any  cherub  or 
seraph,  for  any  throne  or  dominion,  or  principality  or 
power,  for  any  morning  star  in  all  immensity,  or  any  son 
of  God.  (I  speak  it  reverently — Summerbell.)  or  any  son 
of  God  to  all  eternity^  rather  I  honor  them  by  this  claim, 
and  they  will  prize  the  compliment  as  an  augmentation 
of  their  felicity." — Bible  Alliance,  pp.  49-52. 

Xow  had  Christ  used  this  language,  you  all  know  that 
my  brother  would  have  quoted  it  to  have  proved  him  the 
Supreme  God.  Would  they  not  have  said  of  such  words 
as  "my  brow  blazing  with  the  name  of  Jehovah,"  '*  he 
is  an  impostor  if  he  was  not  God  \  "  Yet  Mr.  Stockton 
is  no  impostor,  but  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  who 
framed  this  language,  no  doubt,  during  a  high  state  of 
intellectual  excitement. 

To  prove  that  the  perfections  of  God  are  ascribed  to 
Christ,  a  few  lean  texts,  not  embracing  half  so  much  as 
is  said  of  men,  are  depended  upon.  But  as  though  our 
blessed  Saviour  would  ever  guard  us  against  such  false 
theories,  he  himself  has  given  replies  to  every  such  argu- 
ment. 

1.  If  they  say  that  he  is  called  God,  he  says  that  "The 
Father  is  the  only  true  God." — John  xvii,  3. 

2.  If  they  say  that  he  is  omniscient,  he  says,  "  Of  that 
day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  neither  the  Son,  but  the 
Father  only."— Mark  xiii,  32  ;  Mat.  xxiv,  36. 

3.  If  they  say  that  he  did  all  his  works  by  his  own 
power,  he  says,  "The  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth 
the  works." — John  xiv,  10. 

4.  If  they  say  that  he  performed  all  his  miracles  in  his 
own  name,  he  says,  "  The  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's 
name." — John  x,  25. 

5.  Kthey  say  that  none  but  God  could  do  such  works, 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


103 


he  says,  "  Greater  works  than  these  shall  ye  do." — John 
xiv,  12. 

6.  If  they  say  that  he  is  omnipresent,  he  says,  "  I  am 
glad,  for  your  sakes,  that  I  was  not  there." — John  xi,  15. 

7.  If  they  say  that  he  is  omnipotent,  he  says,  "The 
Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself." — John  v,  20. 

8.  If  they  say  that  he  is  equal  with  the  Father,  he  says, 
"  My  Father  is*^  greater  than  I." — John  x,  29  and  xiv,  28. 

So  carefully  on  every  side  does  Jesus  guard  the  unity 
of  God,  that  no  person  could  say  that  he  came  to  seek  his 
own  glory. 

As  they  claim  that  such  divine  titles  and  honors  prove 
Jesus  to  be  God,  let  us  examine  whether  these  titles  are 
not  ascribed  to  men  and  angels.  And  if  so,  according 
to  my  brother's  theory,  they  also  must  be  Gods. 

1.  Men  have  the  name  God.  Elijah  signifies  God  the 
Lord,  or  Jehovah.  Ex.  vii.  Moses  is  called  God. — xxii, 
28.  It  is  written,  thou  shalt  not  revile  the  gods.  Ps. 
Ixxxii,  6.  I  said  ye  are  gods.  John  x,  30.  He  calls  them 
gods  to  whom  the  Word  of  God  came. 

2.  Angels  are  called  God.  Gabriel,  interpreted,  is 
Mighty  God.  And  Michael,  is  like  God.  Ps.  Ixxxii,  1. 
The  Lord  sitteth  in  the  congregation  of  the  mighty ;  he 
judgeth  among  the  gods.  1  Cor.  viii,  5.  For  though 
there  be  that  are  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in 
earth,  as  there  be  lords  many  and  gods  many. 

3.  Men  have  prophets.  Ex.  vii,  1.  See  I  have  made 
thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh,  and  Aaron,  thy  brother,  shall  be 
thy  prophet. 

4.  Men  are  worshiped  with  oblations.  Dan.  ii,  46. 
Nebuchadnezzer  fell  on  his  face  and  worshiped  Daniel, 
and  commanded  that  they  should  offer  an  oblation  and 
sweet  odors  uuto  him. 

5.  Men  are  worshiped  in  connection  with  God.  1 
Chron.  xxix,  20.  All  the  congregation  worshiped  the 
Lord  and  the  King,  (David.) 

6.  Men  know  all  things.  Ye  have  received  an  unction 
from  the  Holy  One,  and  know  all  things. 


104 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


7.  Men  are  to  judge  the  world  and  angels.  1  Cor. 
vi,  2,  3.  The  saints  shall  judge  the  world.  We  shall 
judge  angels. 

8.  God's  gloiy  is  given  to  men.  John  xvii,  22.  The 
glory  which  thou  gavest  me,  I  have  given  them. 

9.  Saints  are  one  with  God  and  the  Sod.  John  xvii, 
21.  As  thou,  Father,  art  in  me  and  I  in  thee,  that  they 
also  may  be  one  in  us. 

10.  Saints  pardon  sin.  John  xx,  28.  Whosesoever 
sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them. 

11.  So  also,  Jesus  said,  greater  works  than  these  (his 
works)  shall  ye  do. 

Now  before  my  brother  again  objects  to  these  high 
honors  being  ascribed  to  the  Son  of  God,  let  hira  either 
admit  all  these  into  his  Tfinity,  or  explain  how  the  same 
names  which  are  applied  to  them  as  creatures,  should 
prove  Jesus  the  supreme  God,  and  be  too  high  for  him 
as  the  Son  of  God!  My  brother  quotes  "I  and  my 
Father  are  one."  But  does  this  prove  equality  ?  Are 
not  a  man  and  his  wife  one  ?  Does  not  Jesus  pray,  John 
xvii,  that  we  may  all  be  one,  even  as  he  and  his  Father 
are  one  ?  Were  not  the  builders  of  the  Babel  tower  one  ? 

How  careful  should  we  be  not  to  misinterpret  the 
sacred  Scriptures  ?  He  takes  one  text  here,  and  another 
yonder;  part  of  a  text  from  this  chapter,  and  part  from 
that ;  here  one  about  power,  and  there  one  about  know- 
ledge, and  brings  them  all  together,  just  as  a  mechanic 
brings  together  timbers  to  build  a  house ;  and  frames 
them  tos^ether,  and  says  :  "  Xow  is  not  this  God  ?"  "  Is 
not  this  "God  ?"  "  Have  I  not  done  it  ?"  No  !  no  ! !  you 
have  not  done  it !  You  cannot  manufacture  Gods.  God 
is  Eternal.  And  tlie  Bible  believer  realizes  his  exist- 
ence as  the  eternal  One.  the  great  immutable  first  Cause. 
Let  my  brother  explain  the  passages  which  I  have  quoted 
ascribing  glory  to  men,  and  by  the  same  process  he  can 
explain  all  that  he  has  brought  to  prove  that  more  than 
One  is  God.  And  my  brother  had  better  explain  them, 
for  if  the  Son  be  God,  he  is  not  the  God  of  the  creed,  for 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TEINITT. 


105 


that  God  is  without  body  or  parts,  and  I  am  sure  that 
my  brother  docs  not  wish  to  lie  under  the  imputation 
of  holding  two  Gods.  Concerning  giving  God  a  body, 
however,  my  brother  has  concluded  that  the  creed  is 
false,  for  the  creed  says  that  God  has  no  body  ;  but  my 
brother  says  that  God  has  got  a  body,  }'et  his  brother 
clergyman,  Kev.  Mr.  Mattison,  says  that  to  give  God  a 
body,  is  no  better  than  atheism.  So  that,  my  brother, 
according  to  an  eminent  Methodist  minister,  now  in  New 
York  City,  you  are  no  better  than  an  atheist.  But  I  do 
not  admit  this ;  I  must  defend  you.  These  autliors  are 
hasty  and  unguarded  in  their  language.  My  brother 
admits  that  the  Discipline  is  wrong,  in  making  the  Son 
eternal,  since  he  agrees  with  Clarke,  who  says :  If  Christ 
be  the  Son  of  God,  as  to  his  divine  nature,  then  he  can 
not  be  eternal."  Clarke,  Luke  i,  25.  They  believe  the 
Son  to  be  simply  a  man,  and  yet  the  Son  is  the  second 
IXirson  in  the  Trinity.  In  proof  of  the  human  origin  of 
the  Trinit}^,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  word  Trinity 
was  first  introduced,  in  the  latter  end  of  the  second 
century,  and : 

That  none  of  the  early  fathers  were  Trinitarians  : 

That  my  brother  has  not  been  able  to  find  the  word 
Trinity  in  any  of  their  writings  : 

Tljat  the  first  two  church  historians,  Hegisippus  and 
Eusebius,  were  neither  of  them  Trinitarians  : 

That  Theodosius,  the  tenth,  professedly  Christian  em- 
peror of  Rome,  was  the  first  baptized  in  the  faith  of  the 
Trinity : 

That  when  he  undertook  the  establishment  of  that 
doctrine,  by  the  power  of  the  sword,  he  excluded  the 
congregations  from  over  one  hundred  churches  in  Con- 
stantinople alone : 

That  at  that  time  all  the  Christian  nations  rejected  it : 

That  notwithstanding  all  the  Christian  kings  of  the 
first  five  centuries,  Clovis  of  France  is  called  the  eldest 
son  of  the  Church,  because  the  first  Trinitarian  king  : 

That  of  forty -five  councils  held  in  tlie  fourth  century. 


106 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


embracing  the  largest  councils  held  in  the  early  ages, 
only  thirteen  of  the  smaller  held  the  Trinity,  while  thirty- 
two  opposed  it : 

That  the  conversion  of  the  nations  to  the  Trinity,  is 
called  giving  their  power  to  the  beast — Rev.  xvii,  13  : 

That  at  one  time  in  the  fourth  century,  Athanasius 
was  the  only  Trinitarian  bishop  of  any  note  in  the  world : 

And  that  although  millions  of  people  have  been  put 
to  death  to  establish  it,  it  is  still  falling. 

Mr.  Flood's  Seventh  reply: 

My  brother  quotes  Dr.  Stewart  on  John  i,  3,  who  sup- 
poses that  God  nmst  have  been  different  from  the  Word. 
How  ?  Different  in  substance  ?  Different  in  power  ? 
Different  in  glory  or  eternity  ?  This  seems  to  be  a  very 
ambiguous  phrase,  and  if  it  is  not  as  an  exposition,  I 
am  perfectly  willing  that  he  should  enjoy  its  entire 
benefit.  He  quotes  Mr.  Stockton,  page  122.  When  that 
eminent  divine  learns  how  his  name  has  been  brought 
into  this  discussion,  he  will  consider  that  no  great  com- 
pliment has  been  paid  him  in  the  manner  in  which  his 
writings  have  been  used.  I  will  read  a  passage  from 
Mr.  Stockton,  commencing  on  the  same  page. 

"  Now  thou  art  glorified  with  the  glory  which  thou 
hadst  with  me  before  the  world  was.  Now  thou  art  in 
the  form  of  God,  and  thinkest  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal 
with  God.  Now  thou  art  acknowledged  by  me  and  by 
the  universe,  to  be  the  very  brightness  of  my  glory,  and 
the  express  image  of  my  person.  How,  then,  canst  thou 
bear,  even  though  only  in  appearance,  to  lose  my  love  ? 
How  canst  thou  bear  to  obscure  thy  glory,  and  make  thy- 
self of  no  reputation  ?  How  canst  thou  bear  to  take  upon 
thee  the  form  of  a  servant  ?  Nay,  far  worse  than  this-,  how 
canst  thou  bear- to  exchange  my  image  for  the  fashion  of 
man,  of  sinful  man,  debased  to  the  likeness  of  the  devil  ?" 
You  see  it  is  in  connection  with  his  humanity,  that  he  is 
contemplating  this;  not  in  his  divinity — not  as  he  existed 
prior  to  his  manifestation.    "How  canst  thou,  in  thy 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  107 

divine  nature,  shall  God  die  ?"  Ko !  Dr.  Stockton  never 
uttered  it.  I  used  the  term  Dr.,  because  the  honor  was 
conferred  by  the  Pennsylvania  College  at  Gettysburgli ; 
but,  like  Mr.  Barnes,  he  declined  the  honor — the  only 
two  living  divines  who  ever  rejected  the  title  of  D.  D. 
This  passage,  in  its  connection,  is  sufficient  for  the  pre- 
sent purpose,  to  show  he  does  not,  in  the  selection,  know 
what  notes  he  quotes,  from  pages  149, 150, 152,  contain- 
ing the  elegant  language  of  Mr.  Stockton.  He  thinks 
if  I  had  met  with  this,  as  applied  to  Christ,  I  should 
have  applied  it  in  proof  of  his  divinity.  Surely  my 
brother  has  made  a  grand  mistake.  When  he  ventures  to 
compare  himself  to  a  mariner,  might  not  any  traveler, 
on  his  return  to  his  native  land,  have  dictated  this  sen- 
timent, and  expressed  this  feeling  ?  "  Like  a  warrior  ?" 
now,  it  seems  that  Christians  are  represented  in  this 
light,  in  the  Word  of  God.  and  required  to  take  to  them- 
selves the  whole  armor  of  God.  I  wonder  he  did  not 
charge  Mr.  Stockton  with  blasphemy,  or  guilty  of  sacri- 
lege, in  using  such  language.  He  challenges  the  blind, 
the  dumb,  the  sick,  the  leprous,  &c.  Here  he  alludes  to 
the  glorious  traits  contained  in  the  miraculous  transac- 
tions of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  And  the 
brother  supposes,  that  iiad  this  language  been  applied  to 
Christ,  I  should  have  taken  it  as  a  proof  that  he  was  God. 
"All  thrones,  and  dominions,  morning  stars,"  &c.,  of  all 
these  clainls  he  audience,  and  then  demands  the  audi- 
ence of  the  Son  of  God,  yet  with  no  apology  to  any,  for 
this  claim  ;  they  would  prize  the  compliment  as  an 
augmentation  to  their  felicity.  I  hail  them  afar  by  the 
silver  trumpet  of  Isaiah,  "Hear  O  Heaven,  and  give  ear 
O  earth,  for  the  Lord  had  spoken."  Here,  then,  is  that 
page — he  claims  the  audience  of  those  hosts — he  ad- 
dresses them  by  the  silver  trumpet ;  not  of  Thomas  H. 
Stockton,  but  of  Isaiah.  Xow,  what  the  brother  has  dis- 
covered in  all  this,  that  could  have  attracted  his  attention, 
except  it  be  the  sublimity  of  the  language,  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  conceive.    Then,  with  regard  to  the  wonders  of 


108 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITT. 


God,  as  assumed  bv  Trinitarians,  God  is  one,  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost:  these  three  are  one.  There  are 
three  persons  constituting  the  true  Godhead,  dwelling  in 
the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  bodily.  This,  my  brother  in- 
timates, may  be  illustrated  by  the  idea,  that  a  man  and 
his  wile  are  one ;  even,  as  intimated  by  my  brother,  that 
the  builders  of  Babel  were  one.  Xow,  will  he  have  it 
understood  that  the  builders  of  Babel  were  one,  in  the 
same  way  that  the  Father  and  Son  are  one  ?  Had  they 
been  one  in  that  sense,  in  the  erection  of  that  tower,  their 
object  might  not  have  been  frastrated  by  the  confusion  of 
their  language  ;  but  they  were  scattered.  So  the  union 
that  exists  between  Father  and  Son,  may,  at  some  future 
period,  be  broken  up ;  and  this,  I  shall  show,  may  be  the 
case,  if  the  union  exists  by  a  delegation  of  power  from 
one  to  the  other.  That  there  may  be  such  a  thing  as  a 
derangement  in  the  union  that  now  exists,  provided  that 
it  was  so,  this  will  be  made  as  clear  as  the  light  of  day, 
at  the  proper  time.  He  then  goes  on  to  notice  some  pas- 
sages on  the  name  of  God,  and  shows  us  that  these 
names  are  applied  to  man.  It  so  stands,  I  admit,  more 
than  once ;  but  not  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  applied  to 
the  supreme  Jehovah  ;  it  is  applied  to  Moses  with  regard 
to  Pharaoh ;  to  David  in  an  addr^s  to  him,  which  was 
quoted. 

My  brother  said,  I  might  explain,  if  I  could,  how  these 
phrases  were  employed,  in  reference  to  inferior  beings. 
I  here  assume  that  in  no  instance  is  this  language  em- 
ployed, as  it  would  have  been,  had  it  been  expressive 
of  the  perfections  of  the  supreme  God ;  and  he  will  not 
say  that  it  is.  He  also  says,  with  equal  propriety,  that 
the  same  terms  were  applied  to  Jesus  Christ,  which  I 
might  explain  if  I  v:oidd.  These  terms  are  applied  to 
Jesus  Christ,  in  the  same  sense  that  they  are  applied  to 
the  Lord  Jehovah ;  and  hence,  this  changes  the  face  of 
the  matter  very  materially — it  is  used  in  the  passage 
already  quoted,  Hebrews  i,  8 ;  unto  the  Son  he  saith, 
"Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever."    Here  it  is 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  109 


applied  to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  same  absolute  sense  that 
it  is  applied  to  God,  Isaiah  ix,  6,  "  For  unto  us  a  child  is 
born ;  unto  us  a  Son  is  given,  and  the  government  shall 
be  upon  his  shoulders ;  and  his  name  shall  be  called 
Wonderful,  Counselor;  the  Mighty  God  ;  the  Everlasting 
Father ;  the  Prince  of  Peace."  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
found  an  argument  upon  this  passage,  at  a  subsequent 
time ;  I  quote  here  to  prove  that  these  titles  are  given  to 
Jesus  Christ,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  they  are  applied 
to  the  alrfiighty  Jehovah.  He  says,  the  parents  of  Samp- 
son, when  they  had  seen  an  angel,  allowed  that  they  had 
seen  God ;  and  I  could  have  referred  him  to  many  simi- 
lar expressions,  even ;  and  thus  he  quotes  the  instance 
in  which  a  man  highly  favored  of  God,  and  to  whom  I 
have  already  alluded  in  this  discussion,  supposes  that  a 
God  was  before  him,  and  was  about  to  bow  down  to  him, 
and  worship  him,  even  as  God;  but  was  forbidden,  from 
the  very  fact,  that  it  would  have  been  idolatry,  however 
exalted  he  was  in  character,  or  appearance.  So  if  Jesus 
Christ  be  not  God,  then  would  the  same  truth  necessarily 
follow,  that  if  acts  of  devotion  were  paid  to  him,  in  the 
sense  in  w^ich  they  were  paid  to  the  supreme  God,  those 
acts  would  be  idolatrous  in  their  nature ;  but  whenever 
devotions  have  been  paid  to  Jesus  Christ,  has  he  ever 
refused  to  receive  them  ? 

In  the  same  chapter  quoted,  Hebrews  i,  6,  "  And  again 
■when  he  bringetli  in  the  first  begotten  into  the  world,  he 
sayeth,  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him."  So 
that  Christ  is  worshiped  by  angels  in  heaven — they  are 
all  required  to  do  it.  He  was  worshiped  and  adored  upon 
this  earth,  and  received  divine  honors,  expressed  clearly 
in  the  acts  of  devotion  paid  to  him,  without  even  charg- 
ing upon  those  who  did  it  the  act  of  idolatry ;  hence  the 
matter  appears  in  a  very  difierent  light  when  the  true 
position  of  this  question  is  asserted.  My  brother  says, 
that  men  can  manufacture  Gods.  Whom  he  supposes 
anxious  to  manufacture  Gods,  I  cannot  conceive.  I  ap- 
proach this  subject  with  profound  reverence.    We  might 


110 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


sometimes,  when  we  see  men  disposed  to  prove  great 
things,  conclude  they  might  be  going  out  on  the  business 
of  world  making ;  but  the  idea  of  manufacturing  Gods, 
seems  to  be  fraught  with  such  sentiments%f  blasphemy, 
that  I  cannot  dwell  upon  it,  without  expressing  my  ab- 
horrence of  the  man  who  could  engage  in  such  a  business. 

My  brother  hands  me  a  printed  paper  of  his  own,  on 
which  fifty  distinct  points  of  diflference  are  made  out  be- 
tween his  belief  and  ours,  and  half  of  which  I  design 
noticing,  that  he  may  not  say  an  answer  has' not  been 
given.  The  forty-ninth  point  which  he  makes  out,  is, 
that  we  hold,  divisions  among  Christians  are  right.  My 
brother,  not  Methodism,  is  responsible  for  this. 

I  assert  that  Methodism  teaches  no  such  thing,  as  that 
division,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  is  right ;  that 
this  is  ground  which  I  do  not  wish  to  enter  upon,  I 
merely  mention  it,  to  show  its  want  of  applicability. 

Mr.  Summerbell  responds  with :  The  proposition  re- 
ferred to  by  Mr.  Flood,  was  not  read,  and  that  it  was 
erased  out  on  the  printed  paper  handed  to  Mr.  Flood. 

When  ye  pray,  say  Holy  Trinity."  There  is  no  such 
injunction  in  the  Methodist  Discipline ;  but  I  can  see  no 
propriety  in  answering  what  has  no  connection  with  the 
subject,  and  which  really  has  no  existence  in  our  Disci- 
pline. 

My  brother's  friends  will  now  see  the  reason  why  I  am 
compelled  to  treat  much  of  his  argument  in  the  manner 
in  which  I  do.  "  We  have  no  God  but  Jesus."  This  is 
language  which  does  not  occur  in  the  Book  of  Discipline; 
and  the  brother  stands  responsible  for  placing  such  lan- 
guage in  the  mouth  of  Methodists,  and  presenting  it  as 
their  arguments  in  this  printed  sheet. 

To  say  that  we  have  no  God  but  Jesus,  is  to  me,  lan- 
guage both  new  and  novel.  "He  performeth  all  works 
by  his  own  power."  Where  the  brother  quotes  that  lan- 
guage from,  I  do  not  know ;  yet  he  sets  it  down  as  drawn 
from  the  Methodist  Discipline.  Heb.  i,  3,  "And  being 
the  brightness  of  his  Father's  glory,  and  the  express 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


Ill 


image  of  his  person,  and  upholding  all  things  by  the 
word  of  his  power,  when  he  had  by  himself  purged  our 
sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  majesty  on  high." 

So  if  it  is  assumed  that  Christ's  power  is  an  independent 
power,  it  seems  to  accord  very  well  with  this  language. 
"  Christ  is  equal  with  God,"  is  the  thirty-sixth  proposi- 
tion posted  ;  to  which  he  quotes  as  his  belief,  "My  Father 
is  greater  than  1."  We  quote,  "  In  him  dwelleth  all  the 
fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily ;  all  power  in  heaven  and 
earth  is  given  into  my  hands."  Again,  "  I  Jiave  power 
to  lay  my  life  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again 
here  is  the  assertion  of  omnipotent  power. 

This  is  conceived  to  be  all-sufficient,  in  review  of  the 
position  alluded  to  by  my  opponent,  on  that  subject. 

Now  let  us  allude  to  the  reference  made  again  to  the 
doctrine,  "that  our  God  died;"  which  he  attempted  to 
prove.  I  assert  that  no  such  language  is  to  be  found  in 
our  belief.  Whenever  he  reads  out  to  me,  that  Mr. 
Stockton  says  that  God  died,  I  will  say  he  has  a  respect- 
able author  to  maintain  a  most  astounding  error. 

That  God  died,  is  not  only  an  error  of  doctrine,  it  is 
an  absolute  impossibility ;  but  now  the  difficulty  with 
him  seems  to  be,  that  we  represent  Christ  as  both  God 
and  man,  showing  that  he  died.  It  is  the  right  of  every 
man,  and  every  party,  to  explain  their  own  views.  We 
hold,  and  have  asserted  time  and  again,  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  both  God  and  man — that  he  possesses  a  human  and 
divine  nature,  not  in  two  separate  and  distinct  persons, 
but  in  one,  and  that  in  his  humanity  he  died,  but  that  in 
his  divinity  he  lives  for  ever. 

Mk.  Summerbell's  Eighth  address  : 

Kind  friends — my  brother  has  made  out  quite  as  well 
as  I  expected.  He  positively  denied  that  any  Methodist 
clergyman  believed  that  God  died,  or  divinity  suffered. 
So  I  read  him,  Kev.  Mr,  Stockton,  the  highest  authority 
in  his  own  church.  He  cannot  evade  Stockton,  unless 
he  denies  that  the  pre-existent  Logos,  by  which  all  things 


112 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


were  made,  is  divine.  But  having  asserted  over  and  over 
again,  that  it  is  God — God  in  contradistinction  to  the  Son 
or  humanity ;  he  has  to  admit  that  God  died. 

I  also  brought  him  Mr.  Stockton's  language  concern- 
ing himself,  ""My  brow  blazing  with  the  name  of  Jeho- 
vah," challenging  the  blind  that  they  may  see,  and  the 
dead  that  they  may  rise ;  claiming  the  audience  of  all 
worlds,  and  thrones,  and  dominions,  morning  stars  and 
archangels,  or  any  Son  of  God  to  all  eternity ;  and  saying 
that  he  had  jio  apology  to  make  to  any  Son  of  God  to  all 
eternity ;  and  I  challenged  my  brother  to  find  any  place 
where  Jesus  used  such  boastful  language  concerning 
himself,  or  where  the  apostles  used  it  concerning  him; 
and  urged,  and  still  urge,  that  if  my  brother  were  to  find 
such  language  concerning  Jesus,  he  would  seize  upon  it 
to  prove  his  supreme  divinity,  and  that  it  would  prove 
Stockton's  divinity  by  my  brother's  course  of  reasoning. 
But  he  says,  that  when  Mr.  Stockton  challenged  with 
no  apology,  any  Son  of  God  to  all  eternity,  he  spoke  it 
reverently.  No !  Those  were  my  wwds,  I  felt  an  awe 
in  reading  them,  and  I  said — "I  speak  it  reverently." 
These  were  not  Mr.  Stockton's  words.  But  he  reviews 
and  calls  my  attention  to  where  Mr.  Stockton  speaks  of 
himself  as  a  mariner,  to  show  that  he  could  not  prove 
him  God ;  but  could  not  my  brother  apply  the  two-nature 
scheme  here,  and  say,  "  Why  that  means  his  human- 

My  brother  spent  some  time  reviewing  my  little  paper; 
perhaps  he  spent  more  time  upon  it  than  it  was  absolutely 
worth ;  but  he  made  nothing  out  of  it  for  his  side.  He  ar- 
gues, that  in  Christ  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead. 
"  So  are  we  filled  with  the  fullness  of  God."  Eph.  iii,  19. 
But  does  this  prove  us  equal  with  God  ?  Is  this  house 
the  sun  because  filled  with  its  light ;  or  is  a  chest  filled 
with  gold,  the  gold  that  is  in  it  ? 

He  says,  that  1  asserted  that  they  had  no  God  but  Jesus. 
I  asserted  that  this  was  popular  Trinitarian  phraseo- 
logy.   I  did  not  quote  it  as  belonging  to  the  Methodist 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


113 


Protestant  Church.  In  that  class  of  illustrations  I  inclu- 
ded all  Trinitarian  and  Calvinistic  churches. 

He  says,  that  the  Methodists  do  not  say,  When  ye  pray 
say  "  Holy  Trinity ;"  but  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church 
does,  and  their  faith  is  the  same ;  the  Methodist  being  a 
part  of  the  same.    They  say  in  the  Prayer-book  : 

1.  O  God  the  Father,  maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  have 
mercy  on  us  miserable  sinners. 

2.  O  God  the  Son,  redeemer  of  mankind,  have  mercy 
on  us  miserable  sinners. 

3.  O  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  thou  sanctifier  of  our  natures, 
have  mercy  on  us  miserable  sinners. 

4.  O  God  the  Holy  Trinity,  three  persons  in  one  God, 
have  mercy  on  us  miserable  sinners. 

They  pray  to  the  whole  four  of  them ;  and  the  prayers 
in  the  Prayer-book  are  commanded  to  be  prayed.  If 
they  be  not  Methodist,  they  are  quite  as  orthodox ! 

My  brother  has  been  able  to  bring  no  text  of  Scripture 
against  us  yet ;  those  which  he  has  brought,  I  have 
proved,  had  no  such  bearing,  by  the  very  best  orthodox 
authorities.  He  says,  that  if  I  worship  my  Christ,  it  is 
idolatry ;  but  he  did  not  prove  it !  Angels  and  saints  in 
glory  worship  God  and  the  Lamb — the  Lamb  that  was 
slain.  God  has  commanded  us  to  worship  him,  and  I 
will  obey.  But  what  will  my  brother  do  with  the  very 
man  part  of  his  Saviour — the  mediator  part  ?  will  he 
worship  it?  No;  that  is  a  creature.  Thus  he  divides 
his  Saviour;  and  labels  the  parts :  this  is  divine,  and  that 
human ;  this  is  God,  and  that  man ;  this  may  be  wor- 
shiped, but  not  that.  Now  I  worship  a  whole  Saviour  ; 
he  is  one  undivided  Saviour  to  me.  I  want  none  of  this 
cutting  and  carving.  I  want  no  dissecter  to  pass  his 
knife  through  my  Saviour,  separating  him  part  from  part, 
and  telling  me  which  is  divine,  and  which  human;  which 
God  and  which  man  ;  which  I  may  worship,  and  which  I 
may  not.  And  1  am  sure  that  if  we  get  to  heaven,  we  will 
find  an  undivided  Saviour  there.  In  the  Revelation  we 
have  a  scene  in  heaven  •  "God  sits  upon  a  throne,  (iv,  3) ; 
10 


114 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


"With  a  book  in  his  right  hand,  (v,  1) ;  The  angel  cries 
who  is  worthy  to  open  the  book  ;  and  no  man  in  heaven," 
(now  mark  that)  "  no  man  in  heaven,  nor  in  earth,  nor 
Tinder  the  earth  was  able ;"  this  excludes  my  brother's 
"  very  man  but  though  no  man  was  able,  yet,  said  the 
angel,  weep  not,  for  behold  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah  hath  prevailed  to  open  it.  And  I  beheld,  and  lo, 
in  the  midst  of  the  throne,  a  Lamb  as  it  had  been  slain," 
(not  my  brother's  God  that  did  not  die,)  "  and  he  came 
and  took  the  book  out  of  the  right  hand  of  him  that  sat 
upon  the  throne."  Does  my  brother  think  that  it  was 
the  same  one  who  sat  upon  the  throne,  that  came  and 
took  the  book  out  of  the  right  hand  of  him  that  sat  upon 
the  throne  ?  It  was  not  the  man ;  because  there  was  no 
man  able.  And  this  Lamb  the  saints  and  angels  join  to 
worship.  God  says, Heb.  i,  6,  "when  he  brings  the  first 
begotten  into  the  world,  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship 
him,"  i.  e.,  the  first  begotten.  Will  my  brother  worship  the 
first  begotten  ?  Is  God  the  first  begotten  ?  if  not,  who  is 
it  he  worships  ?  Will  he  worship  the  Son  ?  Clarke 
says,  "  Son  implies  inferiority ;"  and  he  agrees  with 
Clarke.  But  if  not,  if  he  will  not  follow  the  practice  of 
angels,  why  does  he  quote  it  ? 

My  brother  next  quotes.  Is.  ix,  6,  where  he  thinks  the 
Son  is  called  the  everlasting  Father ;  or  at  least,  the  Lo- 
gos is  so  called !  The  Logos  is  the  second  person  ;  are 
there  two  Fathers  ?  The  Athanasian  creed  says,  "  that 
we  must  neither  confound  the  persons,  nor  divide  the 
substance ;  if  we  do,  without  doubt  we  shall  perish  ever- 
lastingly." I  do  not  believe  it,  but  my  brother  does ; 
yet  here  my  brother  confounds  the  persons,  and  makes  the 
second  person  the  Father;  and  the  child  born,  that,  he 
says,  was  very  man — that  was  not  the  mighty  God,  but 
the  man.  This  is  the  lowest  form  of  Socinianism.  The 
Socinian  believes,  that  the  child  born  was  man,  and  that 
the  mighty  God  was  in  the  man.  But  the  prophet  says, 
that  the  name  of  the  child  born,  should  be  "called  the 
.inighty  God."    He  says  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  explain 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


115 


the  passages  which  I  presented  him  !  But,  if  Jesus  was 
simply  "very  man,"  and  only  called  God  because  God 
was  in  him,  how  could  this  make  him  God  any  more 
than  Moses,  who  is  called  God  ?  Exod.  vii,  1 ;  or  those 
to  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  who  are  called  Gods  ? 
Exod.  xxii,  28,  or  John  x,  34,  "  Thou  shalt  not  revile  the 
Gods,  nor  curse  the  ruler  of  thy  people;"  or  "The  Lord 
sitteth  in  the  congregation  of  the  mighty,  he  judge th 
among  the  Gods."  "I  said  ye  are  Gods."  Ps.  Ixxxii,  1- 
6.  Now  I  want  my  brother  to  explain  this,  "  Jonathan 
said  unto  David,  0  Lord  God  of  Israel^''  &c.,  1  Sam. 
XX,  12.  He  cannot  dispute,  that  if  he  found  a  passage 
which  read,  "And  Peter  said  unto  Jesus,  O  Lord  God 
of  Israel,"  he  would  bring  it  up  as  positive  proof,  better 
far  than  any  he  has  found.  If  Jesus  had  had  a  prophet 
and  been  called  God,  (Elohim)  as  Moses,  he  would  have 
considered  it  good  proof  of  supreme  Deity. 

He  quotes,  Heb.  i,  3,  "  Upholding  all  things  by  the 
word  of  Ms  ]}ower^^  to  prove  that  Christ  upholds  all 
things  independent  of  the  Father,  by  his  own  power. 
The  text  reads : 

"  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners 
spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets  ; 
2  Hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son, 
whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by  whom 
also  he  made  the  worlds ;  3  Who,  being  the  brightness 
of  his  glory  and  the  express  image  of  his  person,  and 
upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,  when  he 
had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right 
band  of  the  Majesty  on  high." 

You  see  the  personal  pronoun  his^  all  through,  applies 
to  God ;  when  it  applies  to  the  Son,  it  changes  to  him- 
self. So  that  the  text  says,  that  he  upholds  all  things  by 
the  Father's  power.  But  again,  this  is  the  Son,  whom 
my  brother  don't  believe  is  divine.  See  Clarke,  Luke  i, 
25.  This  is  a  very  crooked  system.  He  cannot  under- 
stand how  so  much  glory  can  be  given  to  the  Son  of 
God.    "  John  presents  his  likeness,  as  the  brightness  of 


116 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


the  Father's  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person. 
His  head  and  hair  white  like  wool,  and  his  eves  as  a 
flame  of  fire — his  feet  like  unto  fine  brass,  burning  in  a 
furnace — his  countenance  as  the  sun,  shining  in  his 
strength,  and  a  sharp  two-edged  sword  proceeding  from, 
his  mouth.  Clothed  with  a  white  and  glistering  garment 
down  to  the  foot,  and  gh-t  about  the  paps  with  a  golden 
girdle.  Upon  his  thigh  the  name  written  King  of 
kings  and  Lord  of  lords,  and  upon  his  head  many 
crowns :  thus  he  walks  among  the  golden  candlesticks, 
and  holds  the  stars  in  his  right  hand;  redeems  the  worlds 
which  he  had  created,  and  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
great  eternal  One,  as  the  only  Son,  heir,  and  representa- 
tive of  eternity's  great  King.*'  Will  my  brother  deny 
these  titles  to  the  Son  of  God  ? 

He  says,  that  the  three  persons  do  not  hold  the  scepter 
in  heaven,  only  one  holds  it.  Where  then  are  the  two 
other  persons  ?  Ai-e  they  standing  looking  on  ?  equals 
and  yet  no  scepter  ?  God  and  yet  no  scepter  ?  Have 
they  no  crown '{  no  honors  ?  no  divine  glory  ?  Does  not 
my  brother  worship  the  whole  three  ? 

Go  back,  my  brother,  and  try  again.  Give  us  a  better 
explanation  !  They  must  be  equal  in  glory,  for  the  creed 
says  so  I  i.e.,  the  constitution  and  Discipline,  as  he  prefers 
that  name.  My  brother  next  quotes  Rev.  i,  18.  ^^I am 
.  he  that  liveth,  and  was  dead;  and,  behold,  I  am  alive 
for  evermore,  Amen ;  and  have  tlie  keys  of  hell  and  of 
death."  Xo,  said  my  brother,  "I  am  he  that  liveth,  tliat 
means  the  divine  nature.  And  was  dead,  that  means 
the  human  nature.''  Who  told  my  brother  all  this  ?  or 
did  he  guess  at  it  ?  Read  the  whole  text,  and  you  will  see 
that  this  was  the  Son  of  man  (verse  i,  1-3.)  that  said  all 
this.  He  again  quotes  John  i,  1,  but  there  is  nothing 
said  of  Trinity,  or  three  persons  there.  Yet  he  thinks 
that  there  is  an  argument  for  him,  because  the  apostle 
says  "all  things  were  made  by  him  ;''  but  Heb.  i,  2.  says 
that  God  made  the  worlds  by  his  Son ;  but  my  brother 
don't  believe  that  God  had  a  Son,  when  he  made  the 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITT. 


117 


worlds.  There  is  no  intimation  of  the  Trinity  in  the 
Bible.  It  teaches  that  God  is  One  and  only  one,  and 
that  the  Son  was  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was, 
as  says  the  Nicene  creed,  '^begotton  before  all  worlds 
by  whom  God  created  all  things.  This  Son  of  God  is 
rejected  in  my  brother's  system.  He  has  no  place  for 
the  Son  of  God.  hence  he  says,  many  are  called  Sons  of 
God.  But  the  Scriptures  teach  us  that  God  has  but  one 
Son  :  "  Having,  therefore,  one  Son."  Mark  xii,  6.  A 
certain  kins:  made  a  marriasre  for  his  Son,  not  sons. 
Jesus  is  never  called  one  of  the  Sons  of  God,  but  the  Son 
of  the  living  God  —  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  —  the 
well  beloved  Son  of  God — and  angels  and  men  are  com- 
manded to  worship  him,  as  the  first  begotten,  which  proves 
that  they  are  not  his  equals.  To  which  of  the  angels 
said  God,  at  any  time.  Thou  art  my  Son  ?  Heb.  i,  5. 
This  text  shows  that  they  are  not  the  Sons  of  God.  My 
brother  has  never  answered  those  texts  which  prove 
that  Jesus  was  God's  Son  before  he  came  in  the  flesh :  he 
came  out  from  God  —  came  down  from  heaven  —  came 
out  from  the  Father — had  glory  with  the  Father  before 
the  world  was  ;  though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  our  sakes 
he  became  poor ;  a  body  hast  thou  prepared  me ;  God 
created  the  worlds  by  him ;  he  was  made  a  little  lower 
than  the  angels.  So  it  says  that  God  gave  his  Son,  and 
sent  forth  his  Son,  and  sent  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness 
of  sinful  flesh,  and  that  he  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a 
servant,  and  appeared  in  fashion  as  a  man.  Now  let  my 
brother  tell  us  which  nature  of  his  Christ  will  answer 
this  description. 

The  truth  is,  there  is  no  Trinity  in  the  Bible,  but  one 
God;  one  Son  of  God,  of  the  same  nature  of  the  Father, 
and  one  Spirit  of  God.  The  Christians  believe  that  there 
is  one  God^  and  but  one  God,  and  that  God  is  one,  and 
his  name  One,  in  contradistinction  to  Trinitarian  ism, 
which  teaches  that  three  persons  are  all  God,  and  that 
God  is  composed  of  three  parts,  as  first  person,  second 
person,  third  pei^on,  and  that  his  name  is  three,  or 


118 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


Trinity.  I  will  now  introduce  some  of  the  evidence  on 
which  the  Christian  faith  is  founded,  and  show  you  that 
this  is  the  faith  of  the  Bible. 

1st.  In  the  creation  of  the  world,  Gen.  i,  1,  we  read 
of  but  One  God.  tlie  beginning  God  created  the 

heavens  and  the  eartliP  And  in  giving  the  law,  the  same 
doctrine  is  enforced  by  the  command:  ^^Ilear^  0  Israel^ 
the  Lord  thy  God^  is  one  LordP  Deut.  vi,  4.  Also,  in 
the  New  Testament,  the  same  doctrine  is  enforced.  Paul 
says:  "  God  is  One."  Gal.  iii,  20.  Prophets  and  priests 
sang  the  praises  of  God,  as  the  Holy  One, — the  High  and 
Lofty  One, — and  the  Mighty  One.  See  Is.  li,  15 — xliii, 
15,  and  i,  24.  And  there  are  more  than  one  hundred  texts 
where  God  is  called  One.  But  in  no  one  place  in  the 
whole  Bible  is  God  ever  called  three,  or  Trinity. 

2d.  In  Deuteronomy  xxxii,  12,  he  is  called,  God 
alone — and  he  is  called  God  alone,  or  the  only  God,  over 
one  hundred  times ;  but  nowhere  is  it  said  that  he  is 
not  the  only  God,  or  that  he  has  two  companions. 

3d.  In  Is.  xl,  25,  the  doctrine  is  taught  that  God  is 
without  equal.  "To  whom  will  ye  liken  me,  or  shall 
I  be  equal,  saith  the  Holy  One."  And  in  more  than  fifty 
ojther  texts,  we  are  taught  that  God  has  no  equal.  But 
there  is  not  one  text  in  all  the  Bible  which  says  that  God 
has  an  equal. 

4th.  In  John  xvii,  3,  Jesus  declares  that  his  Father 
is  the  Onhj  True  God.  And  in  over  fifty  other  texts,  the 
same  doctrine  is  expressly  taught.  But  there  is  not  one 
text,  which  says  that  the  Father  is  not  the  only  true  God, 
or  what  would  be  equivalent,  that  two  other  persons  are 
as  much  the  true  God,  as  the  Father. 

5th.  God  speaks  of  himself  as  the  true,  and  only  true 
God,  under  the  personal  pronouns,  in  the  singular  num- 
ber, as  I,  My,  Me  ;  in  opposition  to  the  plural.  Us, 
We,  Ours,  &c.,  over  one  thousand  one  hundred  times. 
"/  even  /  am  He^  and  there  is  no  God  with  Me,"  &c. 
Deut.  xxxii,  39.  But  were  there  three  persons,  one  could 
not  speak  thus  of  himself,  but  must  say  We,  Us,  &c.. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


119 


as  is  always  the  case,  where  there  is  more  than  one 
person. 

6th.  God  is  called  invisible^  immortal^  the  Father  of 
all,  &c.;  together  with  over  one  hundred  and  ten  divine 
epithets,  which  are  never  given  to  the  Son,  nor  to  any 
other  person  in  the  absolute  sense. 

Tth.  Jesus  says  that  God  is  his  Father,  and  his  God, 
John  XX,  17  ;  and  teaches  this  doctrine  in  over  one  hun- 
dred places ;  but  never  calls  himself  God's  father,  or  the 
Father's  God. 

8th.  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  viii,  6,  That  though  others, 
both  in  heaven  and  earth,  are  called  gods,  yet  to  us  there 
is  but  one  God,  the  Father.  And  there  are  thirteen 
hundred  and  twenty-six  texts  in  the  IN'ew  Testament 
alone,  teaching  the  same  doctrine ;  but  there  is  not  one 
which  teaches  that  the  Christians  have  any  other  God. 

9th.  Other  persons,  however,  are  called  gods,  in  the 
New  Testament,  about  tv^eniy  times^  as  follows :  Heathen 
gods  thirteen  times ,  Jesus  three  times;  magistrates 
three  times  ;  the  Devil  once ;  mir  appetites  once  ;  but 
never  so  as  to  deceive  any  person  who  has  not  before 
imbibed  the  error. 

10th.  Jesus  says  that  the  true  worshipers  shall  worship 
the  Father.  Jno.  iv,  23.  And  in  hundreds  of  texts  God 
is  called  a  Father  ;  but  never  a  Son. 

11th.  Jesus  taught  us  to  pray  to  the  Father,  by  pre- 
cept or  example,  in  over  twenty-five  places ;  but  never 
taught  us  to  pray  to  three  persons,  or  to  a  second  or  third 
person. 

12th.  The  Father  is  called  Jehovah,  in  the  Bible,  six 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  twelve  times  ;  but  no  other 
person  is  ever  called  Jehovah,  without  some  qualification. 

13th.  God  is  addressed,  in  the  Bible,  as  one  person, 
as  '-Thou,"  '-He,"  "Him,"  over  four  thousand  times. 
Language  which  is  never  addressed  to  more  than  one 
person,  and  hence  each  text  is  as  positive  an  argument 
that  three  persons  are  not  God,  as  though  it  said,  only 
one  person  is  God,  or  only  one  of  the  three  is  God.  Four 


120 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITY. 


thousand  texts  thus  defiue  God  to  be  but  one  person ; 
while  he  is  never  addressed  or  spoken  of  in  the  plural 
form  of  the  pronouns,  as  jou,  them,  they,  &c.,  in  one 
single  text ;  3'et  this  would  be  the  only  proper  way  to 
give  them  equal  glory,  if  there  were  three  persons  God. 
I  have  now  cited  thousands  of  texts,  which  prove,  in 
Bible  language,  that  the  Father  is  the  only  true  God — 
that  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord — one  Lord  and  his 
name  One — that  God  is  one  ;  but  he  has  not  found  one 
solitary  text  which  says  Trinity,  or  God  is  three,  or  the 
Father  is  not  the  only  true  God.  Now  if  a  faith,  not 
found  in  the  Bible,  is  just  as  good  as  one  found  there, 
what  need  have  we  of  Bibles  ?  The  text  that  says,  ''Let 
us  go  down,"  &c.,  Gen.  xi,  IG,  is  a  bad  one  for  those  to 
quote  on  this  subject,  who  believe  in  the  omniscience  and 
omnipresence  of  God.  I  leave  my  brother  to  explain  it. 
That  God  should  say,  Let  vs  make  man,  is  not  strange, 
for  he  made  all  things  by  his  Son,  Ileb.  i,  1-3,  and  of  course 
spoke  to  him.  So  in  every  case  where  us  is  used,  God 
speaks  to  another.  So  I  can  sa}^,  "  let  m  go^''  yet  I  am 
no  Trinity.  Not  only  is  God  never  addressed,  in  Scrip- 
ture, as  three  persons,  but  our  Methodist  brethren,  who 
profess  to  believe  that  he  is  three  persons,  do  not  so  pray 
to  him.  They  never  address  him  with  the  plural  form  of 
the  pronouns.  They  do  not  say  you^  when  praying,  but 
thou  and  thee ;  so  also  in  their  hymns.  -They  always 
come  to  one  in  the  name  of  another,  and  more  often  pray 
for,  than  to,  the  third.  This  is  almost  uniformly  the  case, 
except  in  afewdoxologiesof  "God  the  Father,  God  the  Son, 
and  God  the  Spirit — three  in  one."  But  in  all  their  prayers 
they  feel  the  unity  of  God.  The  Trinity  never  enters 
into  the  deep  consciousness  of  their  soul's  religion,  show- 
ing that  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  has  entered  deep  into 
their  heart  and  life.  The  Father,  my  friends,  is  the  only 
true  God.  John  xvii,  3.  That  God  is  one,  the  Bible 
asserts.  Is  it  not  true  ?  Shall  we  not  believe  it  ?  Why 
are  you  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets  have 
spoken  ?    Is  it  not  good  doctrine  ?    Can  not  we  be  saved 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


121 


by  the  same  religion  which  saved  the  apostles  and  early 
Christians  ?  Dr.  Mosheim  well  says,  that  the  Trinitarian 
creed  has  been  the  cause  of  many  heresies.  Brethren, 
let  us  put  this  human  doctrine  lar  from  us,  and  return  to 
the  pure  language  and  belief  of  Eevelation.  Then  may 
we  all  be  one  again.  To  prove  the  Bible  doctrine,  I  have 
cited  you  to  12,923  texts  arranged  in  classes,  and  have 
presented  you  representative  texts  of  each  class.  If  my 
brother  will  take  them  up,  I  am  willing  to  take  them  up 
singly,  one  by  one. 

Mr.  Flood's  Eighth  reply : 

I  must  return  my  brother's  compliment,  and  say  he  has 
done  quite  as  well  as  I  expected.  He  asserts  that  the 
language  employed  by  Stockton  would  be  taken  by  me 
as  deifying  the  person  that  used  it.  My  brother  labors 
under  a  serious  mistake.  I  should  never  once  dream  of 
connecting  such  language  with  divinity,  and  should  never 
have  thought,  had  it  been  applied  to  Jesus,  of  taking  it 
as  proof  of  his  being  a  divine  Being.  I  should  as  soon 
assume  that  any  other  conceivable  language  would  be  as 
much  a  proof  as  that ;  but  I  will  not  be  drawn  away  from 
the  argument  by  matters  having  no  bearing  upon  the 
subject,  though  this  is  but  one  of  many  things  of  a  simi- 
lar stamp  which  my  brother  has  presented. 

He  says  of  "  That  in  Christ  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of 
the  Godhead,  bodily,"  that  because  you  may  have  a  chest 
full  of  gold,  therefore  the  chest  would  not  be  equal  to 
the  gold ;  or  that  because  there  are  multitudes  of  persons 
assembled  in  this  house,  the  house  is  not  equal  to  the  mul- 
titude. Well,  now,  if  the  fact  that  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost  dwell  bodily  in  Jesus  Christ,  does  not  con- 
stitute one  God,  the  true  God  of  the  Bible,  then  I  confess 
I  would  not  be  able  to  find  a  single  passage  in  the  whole 
Word  of  God,  that  would  be  illustrative  of  the  character 
and  being  of  God. 

Who  ever  assumed  that  the  human  body,  which  the 
Word  or  Logos  took  upon  him,  was,  in  its  essential  ele- 
11 


122 


DISCUSSIOX  ox  THE  TRIXITY. 


ments  and  nature  equal  with  the  Deity  ?  Who  ever 
asserted  this  ?  No  one  !  We  have  argued  its  essential 
equality  with  human  nature  as  free  from  sin,  but  through 
the  sacrifice  of  a  suitable  atonement  it  might  become  a 
mediator  between  God  and  man.  Thus  would  pardon  be 
secured  to  the  guilty  rebel,  and  the  door  of  hope  opened 
to  a  perishing  world. 

My  brother,  in  alluding  to  the  little  paper  he  handed 
me,  complains  that  I  do  not  answer  the  points  to  which 
he  especially  referred.  I  answered  things  which  I  found 
in  the  little  paper;  but  what  has  that  paper  to  do  with 
the  question  involved  in  discussion?  Namely,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  taught  in  the  Methodist  Pro- 
testant Discipline,  is  contraiT  to  the  Word  of  God,  in  re- 
lation to  the  equality  of  Jesus  Christ  with  the  Father. 
What  has  the  great  mass  of  lumber,  which  my  brother 
has  seen  fit  to  introduce,  to  do  with  the  proposition  under 
consideration  ?  It  is  my  desire  to  be  found  close  about 
the  subject;  and  though  he  is  in  the  affirmative,  and 
wanders  from  the  subject,  I  must  not  be  held  accountable 
for  it.  He  would  make  the  Methodists  in  England,  if 
not  in  this  country,  accountable  for  what  might  be  found 
in  the  Prayer-book  and  Discipline  of  the  Church  of 
England.  We  were  once  part  and  parcel  of  the  Episco- 
palians ;  but  a  separation  took  place,  and  now  the  Metho- 
dist and  the  Established  Church  of  England  are  as  dis- 
tinct as  any  two  Christian  denominations  in  this  country ; 
but  I  must  correct  the  statements  of  my  brother,  which,  I 
dare  say.  he  fell  into  innocently. 

He  wishes  to  know  if  I  will  worship  J esus  the  man, 
or  Jesus  the  divine  nature,  as  my  whole  Saviour  ?  He 
does  not  venture  to  deny  that  J  esus  was  human ;  and 
then  he  turns  round  and  asserts  that  his  brother  will  not 
worship  Jesus  Christ.  Where  the  brother  gathered  that 
information  from.  I  can  not  state.  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
object  of  my  worship.  I  worship  him  as  the  true  God — 
as  the  only  tangible  manifestation  of  God — as  the  only 
object  of  the  faith  revealed  to  the  world.    The  humanity 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


128 


of  Jesus  Christ  is  associated  with  the  divine  nature  mys- 
teriously. The  association  and  manner  of  it,  I  do  not 
understand.  The  fact  is  a  fact  of  Revelation.  I  vi^orship 
him  in  his  true  character  as  God,  the  second  person  in  the 
adorable  Trinity.  I  worship  him  as  God,  equal  in  sub- 
stance, power,  glory,  and  eternity,  with  the  Father.  I 
worship  him  in  connection  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  the  one  God  of  the  Bible — the  only  true  God. 
Hence  my  good  brother,  I  hope,  will  no  more  make  the 
statement  that  I  do  not  worship  Christ.  I  do  not  wor- 
ship him  as  having  delegated  power.  I  could  not  wor- 
ship him  if  a  doubt  rested  in  my  mind,  that  he  existed 
at  the  will  of  another;  that  he  may  be  able  now  to 
grant  me  all  my  request,  and  to-morrow  his  delegated 
power  may  be  withdrawn,  and  he  may  be  unable  to  grant 
my  request,  and  meet  my  necessities. 

This  doctrine  of  delegated  power,  from  one  being  to 
another,  who  is  not  co-equal  with  him  in  substance  and 
in  power,  involves  in  it  much  absurdity — much  that  is 
impossible;  its  resemblance  to  skepticism,  its  near  approxi- 
mation to  atheism.  If  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth 
is  given  into  the  hands  of  Jesus  Christ,  then  there  is 
no  power  which  is  not  conferred,  and  if  that  power  is 
conferred,  it  is  the  power  of  omnipotence  ;  it  is  the  power 
that  supports  all  material  order;  it  is  the  power  from 
which  emanates  all  material  law,  that  sustains  universal 
existence,  the  comforts  of  life,  both  material  and  imma- 
terial ;  it  is  the  source  of  all  existence,  if  it  were,  as  my 
brother  intimates ;  the  being  from  whom  this  power 
was  transferred  loses  his  essential  attribute — the  Creator 
is  annihilated,  the  giver  of  this  power  falls  annihilated. 
My  brother  at  last  admits,  that  a  transfer  of  infinite 
perfections  of  the  Almighty,  to  a  created  being,  would 
be  a  transfer  of  power  that  could  not  exist  in  two  natures 
at  the  same  time.  If  you  admit  it,  you  have  the  absurdity 
of  two  infinites  at  the  same  time.  The  brother  quotes 
"  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  is  given  into  my  hands," 
and  then  he  asserts  he  has  power  only  from  his  own  life. 


124 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


If  the  power  of  supporting  his  own  existence  is  given  to 
him,  and  lie  asserts  that  he  has  power  to  lay  his  life 
down  and  power  to  take  it  again,  it  involves  a  contradic- 
tion to  what  has  been  asserted  by  my  brother.  If  he  has 
life  in  himself,  he  has  it  not  from  another.  If  he  has  the 
right  and  the  power  of  sustaining  his  own  life,  it  did  not 
come  from  another.  And  when  my  brother  asserts  that 
all  power  is  given  unto  him,  he  asserts  that  which  is  not 
possibly  true.  While  my  brother  exhorts  us  to  abandon 
these  unscriptural  phrases  and  notions,  I  would,  in  the  best 
of  feeling,  turn  to  him,  and  urge  upon  him  to  abandon  his 
doctrine,  which  is  an  approximation  to  absolute  atheism. 
His  position  necessarily  annihilates  the  Lord  Jehovah. 
I  assume  that  the  attributes  of  Deity,  such  as  t)mnipo- 
tence,  omniscience,  and  omnipresence,  being  transferable, 
is  in  itself  an  inconsistency.  For  if  these  attributes 
could  be  transferred,  the  original  power  ceases,  and  the 
original  existence  ceases  with  it.  My  brother  has  been 
greatly  concerned  about  the  language  of  the  Poet ; 

"  God,  the  mighty  Maker,  died." 

I  may  again  assure  ]i\m  that  Trinitarians  have  never 
believed  it.  My  brotEer  endeavored  to  draw  the  doctrine 
out  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  but  he  could  not  torture 
such  a  doctrine  out  of  it. 

The  promises  of  Christ  must  stand.  Heaven  and  earth 
may  pass  away,  but  his  Word  shall  not  pass  away.  He 
says,  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my 
name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.  Sow  if  Christ 
be  not  omnipresent,  how  could  this  be  ?  There  is  no  place 
in  which  he  is  not.  Indeed,  he  might  be  in  the  four  divi- 
sions of  the  globe  at  the  same  time,  so  that  he  might  be 
with  the  numberless  Christians  that  truly  worship  in  his 
name  ;  and  if  he  be  not  omnipresent,  it  is  utterly  impos- 
sible that  he  could  fulfill  the  conditions  of  his  promise. 
But  can  two  omnipresents  exist  at  the  same  time  Could 
two  persons  of  omniscient  ubiquity  occupy  the  same 
place  at  the  same  time  ?     If  I  ascend  into  heaven,  thou 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


125 


art  there;  if  I  make  my  bed  in  hell,''  (fcc.  Here  the 
universality  of  the  presence  of  Jehovah  is  asserted.  He 
claims  this  attribute  for  himself,  as  we  have  shown  ;  and 
of  Christ  claiming  this  attribute  for  himself,  it  is  one  of 
the  essential  ^perfections  of  his  divine  nature,  and  of 
course,  it  can  be  possessed  by  no  other  being  at  the  same 
time.  Surely  then,  my  brother  has,  in  my  estimation, 
made  a  very  serious  blunder,  in  introducing  the  argument 
in  the  form  he  has  done,  and  in  the  present  connection. 

lie  then  alludes  to  my  quotation,  Heb.  i,  3.  "  Who 
being  the  brightness  of  his  glory  and  the  express  image 
of  his  person,  and  upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of 
his  power,  when  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,  sat 
down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high."  I 
remark,  in  purging  our  sins  he  did  it  by  himself ;  he 
did  it  by  himself,  by  his  own  authority  ;  by  the  exercise 
of  his  own  power,  and  I  inquire,  who  can  forgive  sins 
but  he  alone  against  whom  sin  has  been  committed  I  It 
is  not  a  work  that  can  be  done  by  proxy ;  that  power, 
when  he  said  "  the  Son  of  Man  hath  power  on  earth  to 
forgive  sins,  "  he  assumes,  to  exercise  his  authority.  He 
exercises  an  almighty  prerogative,  as  the  apostle  says, 
"  when  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,  sat  down  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high."  I  assume  it  is 
the  same  person,  in  the  same  connection,  that  upholdeth 
all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power.  ]\Iy  brother  says 
that  the  unity  of  God  is  mentioned  in  over  one  hundred 
places  in  the  Scriptures.  I  am  a  rigid  Unitarian.  I 
sustain  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God,  the 
oneness  of  Jehovah,  with  all  the  energy  I  possess,  that 
the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord,  and  that  this  one  Lord 
is  constituted  of  three  persons — the  Father,  Word,  and 
Holy  Spirit.  He  proceeds  to  say  that  more  than  one 
hundred  epithets  are  applied  to  the  Father,  which  are  not 
applied  to  the  Son.  No  doubt  it  is  correct ;  it  is  sti-ictly 
proper  that  it  should  be  so.  In  one  hundred  and  fifty 
passages,  there  are  epithets  employed  in  reference  to  the 
Son,  wliich  are  not  employed  in  reference  to  the  Father ; 


126 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


for  one  class  relate  to  his  humanity,  and  the  other  to  his 
essential  Divinity ;  but  of  which  passages,  therefore,  I 
believe  he  does  mention  that  there  are  over  thirteen 
hundred  texts,  which  speak  of  God  the  Father.  If  they 
were  multiplied  a  thousand  times,  I  would  still  indorse 
them.  Tliese  texts  equally  support  the  position  I  occupy. 
In  sixteen  hundred  passages  he  is  called  Jehovah.  The 
first  occurs  when  he  reveals  himself  to  Israel ;  it  occurs 
frequently  throughout  the  Scriptures,  and  is  expressive 
of  the  God  of  the  Bible — the  mighty  Jehovah.  He  then 
Bays,  our  Trinitarian  creed  does  not  sink  down  deep  into 
the  heart,  and  urges  us  most  earnestly,  to  put  it  away. 
I  thank  God  that  this  Trinitarian  creed  has  had  a  long 
lodgment  in  my  heart — deeply  imprinted  there.  I  love 
God,  the  Father,  because  he  first  loved  me.  I  love  God, 
the  Son,  because  he  came  into  the  world  that  he  might 
be  a  propitiation  for  my  sins,  and  not  for  mine  only,  but 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  I  love  the  Holy  Ghost, 
because  he  is  the  agent  awakening  me,  and  bringing  me 
to  a  sense  of  my  perishing  state,  and  danger.  I  love  the 
Holy  Spirit,  because  he  is  my  regenerator  and  sanctifier ; 
because  in  his  communion  he  is  the  Source  of  joy  and 
comfort,  by  day  and  by  night,  in  a  happy  and  blessed 
experience  of  more  than  seventeen  years,  when  he  found 
me  a  wandering  orphan  boy,  upon  the  dark  mountains  of 
Bin  and  folly,  and  brought  me  as  a  broken  reed,  to  the 
feet  of  Immanuel  God  ;  and  I  love  him,  that  he  has 
Bealed  me  as  an  heir  of  an  immortal  inheritance  beyond 
the  grave.  And  hence,  these  truths  have  found  a  deep 
lodgment,  sir,  in  the  heart  of  your  opponent.  And  I 
hope  that,  in  passing  Jordan,  when  I  shall  dip  my  san- 
dals into  its  chilling  waves,  my  Lord  shall  sustain  me ; 
and  though  the  river  be  wide  spread,  and  its  waters  dark, 
yet  shall  I  see  the  pebbles  under  my  feet,  but  beyond,  I 
view  the  rising  spires  of  the  distant  City,  the  Xew  Jeru- 
salem, the  home  of  the  saints,  where  I  shall  be  happy  to 
clasp  my  brother's  hands  upon  that  smiling  shore.  But 
while  we  are  here,  we  will  worship  at  the  shrine  of  this 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  127 


one  God,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  trusting  in 
his  might  and  relying  on  his  power,  amid  all  the  changes 
of  life,  and  reign  with  him — one  God,  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  in  a  better  world. 

Mr.  Summerbell's  Ninth  address: 

There  is  one  thing,  my  friends,  that  I  wish  yoa  to  notice, 
all  my  quotations  and  references  from  human  authorities, 
are  on  my  brother's  side  of  the  house.  I  prove  my  ex- 
position of  Scripture  by  his  witnesses ;  he  proves  his,  by 
his  own  witnesses,  which  makes  them,  in  this  debate,  no 
proof  at  all.  Yet  my  brother  falls  back  upon  these  Tri- 
nitarian authorities,  as  if  they  were  to  decide  the  ques- 
tion. Strange  idea !  My  friend's  closing  speech,  yester- 
day, was  remarkable  for  four  things  :  1st.  Skeptical  mode 
of  thought;  2d.  Irreverence  for  the  divine  attributes; 
3d.  Most  careful  avoidance  of  my  argument ;  and  4th. 
Unsparing  lung-power.  But  my  brother  should  remem- 
ber that  the  prophet  said,  "  Though  a  strong  wind  rent 
the  mountains,  yet  the  Lord  was  not  in  the  wind ;  and 
after  the  wind  an  earthquake,  but  the  Lord  was  not  in 
the  earthquake  ;  and  after  the  earthquake  a  fire,  but  the 
Lord  was  not  in  the  fire  ;  but  after  the  fire  a  still  small 
voice,  and  the  Lord  was  there."  It  is  not  the  thunder 
that  kills,  but  the  lightning;  however,  some  are  often 
frightened  with  the  thunder  more  than  the  lightning. 

1  liked  my  brother's  exhortation,  in  his  closing  remarks, 
much.  I  am  glad  that  he  enjoys  the  blessings  of  reli- 
gion. I  was  quite  afiected  under  his  good  talk  about 
passing  over  Jordan,  and  dipping  his  sandals  in  its 
chilling  waves,  and  wmling  through  the  dark  river,  and 
seeing  the  pebbles  under  his  feet ;  but  this  does  not 
prove  the  Trinity. 

My  friend  carefully  avoids  my  argument.  I  have  pre- 
sented above,  forty-four  philosophical  arguments,  show- 
ing that  God  was  not  Christ,  since  God  could  not  die, 
could  not  pray,  could  not  receive  power,  (fee;  which  are 
all  unanswered.  My  fifth  argument,  concerning  the  three 


128 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


infinite  persons,  lie  only  noticed  by  saying,  that  but  one 
of  the  persons  held  the  scepter,  or  sat  on  the  throne ; 
and  to  my  interrogation  of  how  the  two  others  were  en- 
gaged then,  or  how  they  were  equal  ?  he  gave  no  answer. 

To  my  twenty-five  arguments  and  Scriptures  showing 
that  more  was  said  of  men  than  he  had  proved  of  Christ, 
he  barely  replied,  "  It  is  not  said  in  the  same  sense." 

My  interrogation  as  to  the  worship  of  the  Lamb  that 
was  slain,  he  has  not  answered.  Xow,  I  insist  on  his 
stating  plainly,  whether  he  will  worship  the  human  part 
of  his  God — the  human  part  of  his  Christ,  or  only  the 
divine  part,  rejecting  God's  body ;  for  he  has  acknow- 
ledged that  God  has  a  body ;  thus  his  God,  his  Christ, 
is  part  God  and  part  man.  Now  does  he  worship  all, 
or  part  ?  Will  he  worship  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  ? 
"Will  he  worship  the  man  Christ  Jesus  ? 

I  proposed  him  over  three  hundred  texts,  proving  that 
the  Father  is  the  only  true  God  ;  but  he  declines  answer- 
ing them.  I  now  insist  on  his  either  acknowledging  that 
they  are  irreconcilable  with  his  theory,  or  answering 
them.  Yet  I  will  not  ask  too  much,  but  if  he  will  ex- 
plain three  texts  satisfactorily,  I  will  be  satisfied.  I  will 
give  him  John  xvii,  3,  and  let  him  tell  us  how^  the  Father, 
by  the  personal  pronoun  ihee^  singular  number,  is  the  only 
true  God,  and  yet  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  as  much  the  true 
God  as  he  ?  Also,  1  Cor.  viii,  4-8,  ''Though  many  both 
in  heaven  and  earth  are  gods,  or  are  called  Gods,  yet  to  us 
there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father."  Also,  Epli.  iv,  4, 
"  There  is  one  body  and  one  spirit,  one  hope,  one  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who 
is  above  all,"  &c.  How  is  this  one  God  and  Father  of 
all,  greater  than  all^  greater  than  both  the  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost?    Above  all! 

My  friend  evaded  altogether  the  point  in  my  argu- 
ment of  over  two  hundred  Scriptures,  where  God  says, 
"  /  am  God,  and  beside  me  there  is  none  else,"  &c. 
Now  I  insist  on  the  brother  meeting  these,  and  explain- 
ing how  one  person  in  the  Trinity  can  say  "  I  am  God  " 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


129 


in  one  person,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  "  two  other  per- 
sons," as  Jimeson  calls  them  ?  I  insist  upon  the  gen- 
tlemen either  answering,  or  acknowledging  his  inability 
to  do  so.  He  has  frankly  acknowledged  that  God  has  a 
body.  He  has  also  admitted,  contrary  to  his  creed,  that 
the  human  and  divine  natures  of  Christ  were  sepamted 
three  days  and  three  nights.  Would  he  worship  the  "man" 
on  the  cross  I  He  has  acknowledged  that  the  Son  of  God 
is  not  eternal — hence  not  God,  in  defiance  of  the  constitu- 
tion and  Discipline.  In  making  these  concessions,  he  falls 
under  the  ban  of  his  brethren  ;  for  saying  God  has  a  body, 
Mattison  declares  is  no  better  than  Atheism;  p.  46.  In 
denying  the  eternal  Son,  they  say,  he  denies  the  eternal 
Father.  His  opinion  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  only 
by  the  miraculous  conception,  they  say,  is  groundless, 
absurd  and  blasphemous.  Yet,  with  all  these  difficulties 
to  contend  with,  my  brother  still  attempts,  vainly  at- 
tempts, to  find  discrepancies  in  the  Christian  faith.  But 
these  discrepancies  only  exist  in  his  imagination,  and 
fall  back  with  tenfold  force  upon  his  own  contradictory 
system.  Eighteen  hundred  years  ago  Peter  confessed 
that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God.  Since  then,  Peter  de- 
nied him,  but  he  still  remained  the  Son  of  God ;  since 
tlien  Judas  has  betrayed  him,  but  still  he  has  remained 
the  Son  of  God  ;  and  since  then  wicked  J ews  have  cru- 
cified him,  but  still  he  has  remained  the  Son  of  God. 
The  pei*secuting  power  of  Rome  could  not  annihilate 
this  doctrine.  Porphyry  and  Celsus  the  pagan  infidels, 
vainly  warred  against  it ;  it  has  stood  the  shocks  of 
eighteen  centuries  ;  the  former  floods  of  skepticism,  fire 
and  sword,  have  not  been  able  to  overthrow  it.  Upon 
this  rock  will  I  build  my  church,"  said  Jesus,  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  John  wrote 
his  gospel  to  prove  it ;  and  God  from  heaven  owned  it. 
It  was  the  test  of  fellowship  to  the  eunuch  ;  and  the  faith 
that  overcame  the  world  to  John.  God  the  Father  re- 
vealed it,  Jesus  blessed  it,  and  glory  crowned  it ;  and  my 
Drotlier  will  find  that  all  his  endeavoi-s  against  it  will  fail 


130 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


The  brother  proposed  to  me  the  following  supposed 
difficulties.  1st.  AVhen  I  thanked  the  Lord,  he  said, 
very  wittily,  that  he  did  not  know  which  Lord  1  thanked. 
Now.  he  must  have  forgotten  that  I  am  not  a  Trinitarian. 
I  might  say  of  his  thanks — though  it  would  be  uncourte- 
ous — that  I  did  not  know  whether  he  thanked  God  the 
Father.  God  the  Son.  or  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  such 
expressions  are  not  reverential,  and  have  no  application 
to  the  Christians,  who  have  but  one  God.  and  who  own 
but  one  person  as  God. 

2d.  He  appealed  very  pathetically  to  know,  if  the  full- 
ness of  the  Godhead  bodily  dwelling  in  Christ  Jesus, 
■would  not  make  liim  equal  with  God.  or  prove  him  God  ? 
I  answer.  'So.  It  proves  that  he  is  not  that  God  which 
the  creed  says  has  no  body,  but  dwelt  in  him  bodily. 
Saints  are  filled  with  the  fullness  of  God.  yet  they  are 
not  God. 

3d.  He  endeavors  to  avoid  the  prayer  to  the  Holy 
Trinity,  on  the  ground  of  the  English  Methodists  having 
no  connection  with  the  Episcopal  church.  My  brother 
does  not  understand  that  subject.  All  the  Methodist 
sects  sprang  out  of  the  Episcopal  church,  and  the  English 
Methodists  are  still  considered  as  remotely  connected 
with  that  church,  and  in  some  of  the  churches  use  the 
Prayer-book,  and  prayers  placed  in  the  Prayer-book  are 
commanded  to  be  prayed.  But  the  connection  to  which  I 
refer,  is  in  doctiine,  which,  on  this  point,  is  the  same  in 
both.' 

My  friend  discussed  the  omnipotent  attributes  in  an 
nnphilosophical  style  of  exhortation.  He  is  deprecating 
delegated  power — a  term  which  I  have  not  used — speak- 
ing of  Christ  Jesus'  saying  all  power  in  heaven  and  in 
earth  is  given  unto  me,  he  irreverently  remarked,  that  if 
Christ's  power  was  delegated,  he  would  not  trust  him  ! 
Shocking  I  Then  he  can  not  tmst  the  Father  who  sent 
him;  for  to  doubt  one  is  to  doubt  both. 

Yet  he  said,  the  first  day  of  the  discussion,  that  it 
meant  that  Jesus,  to  accomplish  the  great  work  of  re- 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  131 


demption,  needed  the  power  of  the  whole  three  ;  that  it 
was  all  given  him — so  that,  on  his  own  admission,  he  has 
bound  himself  to  reject  his  Saviour !  But  yesterday,  in 
his  desperate  extremity,  he  cried,  "I  don't  believe  it!  " 
What  ?  not  believe  the  Bible  ?  O  yes,  brother,  you  must 
believe  the  word  of  Jesus.  But  again,  he  said,  if  he  re- 
ceived his  power  he  could  not  trust  him ;  literally,  could 
not  trust  the  Father,  but  feared  that  God  would  withdraw 
his  power  from  Jesus.  Did  not  his  "  very  man  "  receive 
his  power  ?  and  will  he  not  trust  him  ? 

Not  trust  his  blood  ? 

Not  trust  his  word  ? 

Not  trust  his  mediatorial  aid  ? 
How  then  will  my  brother  be  saved  ?    But  he  will  trust 
this  very  man  though  his  power  be  delegated ;  then, 
why  not  trust  the  8on  of  God? 

Does  he  reply,  the  very  man  I  can  trust  because  of  his 
close  union  with  the  divinity  ;  but  this  union  can  not  be 
as  close  as  the  union  of  the  Son  with  the  Father.  Then, 
why  not  trust  him  ?  But  he  says,  the  very  man  was  sac- 
rificed on  the  altar  of  divinity,  and  thus  became  all-suffi- 
cient. This  is  a  strange  idea ;  but  if  true,  is  it  not  just 
as  true  of  the  Son  of  God  ?  and  could  not  the  altar  sanctify 
the  Son  of  God  as  well  as  a  very  man  f  Then  why  not 
trust  the  Son  of  God  ?  "He  that  rejecteth  me,  rejecteth 
him  that  sent  me,  "  said  Jesus. 

Again,  he  says,  "  But  if  God  gave  all  'power  to  the 
Son^  then  there  was  no  power  not  given :  omnipotence 
was  conferred  to  another,  and  the  giver  is  annihilated 
hence,  the  giver  will  cease  to  exist,  God  will  be  annihi- 
lated !  Shocking  conclusion  I  founded  upon  principles 
most  illogical ! 

But  how  will  my  brother  avoid  the  consummation  of 
his  rashness  plunging  him  into  the  atheism  which  he 
courted  ?  He  has  admitted  that  all  power  was  given  to 
Christ  to  make  an  atonement — that  is,  all  power  was 
given  to  the  m.an.  Thus,  by  his  own  logic,  God  gave 
all  his  power — that  is,  passed  over  omnipotence  to  the 


132 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


very  man,  a  creature,  so  that  this  creature  became  the 
omnipotent  God,  and  God  ceased  to  exist;  and  his  God, 
consequently,  is  only  1800  years  old,  and  so  far  from 
being  a  Trinity  of  divine  persons,  is  a  deified  creature, 
with  delegated  power.  Such  are  the  atheistical  conclu- 
sions to  which  he  is  forced  by  his  unpMlosophical  pre- 
mises. But,  perhaps  he  will  ask.  How  can  I  avoid  this 
conclusion  ?  well,  every  way.  Has  not  my  brother  learned 
of  God, that  giving  does  not  impoverish  him ;  nor  with- 
holding, enrich  him  ?"  Has  he  thought  so  little  of  om- 
nipotence as  to  imagine  that  it  is  confined  to  heaven  and 
earth  ?  Does  he  not  know  that  a  power  limited  to  heaven 
and  earth,  is  but  finite  power?  a  given  amount?  Infi- 
nite power  lies  all  beyond  any  given  amount,  however 
great. 

God  does  not  give  away  his  own  essential  power. 
Paul  says,  It  is  manifested  that  he  is  excepted  that  did 
put  all  things  under  him."  1  Cor.  xv,  34.  My  brother 
said,  that  if  God  gave  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself, 
then  there  would  be  two  self-existent  persons  ;  but  that 
two  self-existent,  or  two  infinite  beings  can  not  exist. 
Very  well ;  I  do  not  believe  in  two  infinite  persons  ;  but 
my  brother  believes  not  only  that  two,  but  that  three  in- 
finite persons  exist ;  and  he  can  not  deny  it.  If  he  says 
that  the  three  persons  are  not  three  beings,  I  demand  his 
authority  for  such  unnatural  ideas.  Yet,  let  him  define 
his  position,  and  tell  us  what  he  means  by  a  person,  and 
wherein  a  person  difiers  from  a  heing  f  or  what  person 
can  be  iuiagined  that  has  no  being  ?  Yet,  he  has  three 
infinite  ones,  existing  in  the  same  space.  Tell  me,  my 
brother,  how  three  infinites  can  thus  exist?  Answer 
your  own  question,  or  abandon  your  system.  But,  not- 
withstanding his  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  he  claims 
to  hold  the  unity  of  God.  I  will  let  a  Hindoo  teach  him 
knowledge.  Eead  Kammohun  Roy,  p.  171.  "  Should 
we  follow,  on  the  other  hand,  the  interpretation  adopted 
by  Trinitarian  Christians,  namely,  that  the  Godhead 
though  it  is  one,  yet  consists  of  three  persons,  and,  con- 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITT. 


133 


sequently,  one  substance  of  the  Godhead,  might  abide 
with  the  other,  both  being  equally  God,  we  should,  in 
that  case,  be  forced  to  view  the  Godhead  in  the  same 
light  as  we  consider  mankind  and  other  genera;  for, 
no  doubt  can  exist  of  the  unity  of  mankind.  The  plu- 
rality of  men  consists  in  their  persons ;  and,  therefore, 
we  may  safely,  under  the  same  plea,  support  the  unity 
of  man,  notwithstanding  the  plurality  of  persons,  included 
under  the  term  mankind.  In  that  case,  also,  Christians 
ought,  in  conscience,  to  refrain  from  accusing  Hindoos  of 
polytheism ;  for  every  Hindoo,  we  daily  observe,  con- 
fesses the  unity  of  the  Godhead.  They  only  advance 
a  plausible  excuse  for  their  pol}i:heism ;  which  is,  that 
notwithstanding  the  unity  of  the  Godhead,  it  consists  of 
millions  of  substances  assuming  different  offices,  corre- 
sponding to  the  number  of  the  various  transactions  super- 
intended in  the  universe  by  Divine  Providence,  which 
they  consider  as  infinitely  more  numerous  than  those  of 
the  Trinitarian  scheme." 

My  brother  next  says,  that  Christ  Jesus  claimed  omni- 
potence. I  deny  it,  and  require  the  proof.  Jesus  said  to 
the  Jews,  who  thus  accused  him,  "  Yerily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself."  John  v,  19. 
He  says,  Christ  claimed  omniscience.  I  deny  it,  and  de- 
mand the  proof.  Jesus  said,  "  Of  that  day  and  hour  know- 
eth  no  man,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only."  He 
says  that  Jesus  claimed  omnipresence.  This  I  deny,  and 
ask  for  the  proof.  Jesus  said,  "  I  am  glad  for  your  sakes 
that  I  was  not  there."  But  my  brother  says,  "  Did  not 
Jesus  say,  where  two  or  three  are  assembled  in  my  name, 
there  am  I  ?"  Yes  ;  but  Jesus  does  not  say  how;  and  if 
actually  in  person,  yet,  though  it  were  in  untold  millions 
of  places,  yet  would  it  be  a  certain  number,  and  so  fall 
infinitely  short  of  omnipresence.  Omnipresence  is  every- 
where— everywhere,  whether  two  or  three  are  assembled 
or  not — a  limited  presence  is  present  at  certain  places. 
This  is  the  case  in  the  text.  Wherever  two  or  three  are 
assembled  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst.  My 


134 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


brother  believes  the  evil  spirit  present  in  a  plurality  of 
places  ;  will  he  allow  less  to  the  blessed  Son  of  God  ? 

There  is  one  thing  that  I  wish  the  audience  to  remem- 
ber, viz:  that  I  have  left  no  argument  of  the  brother 
unanswered  ;  and  that  I  have  carefully  reviewed  his  few 
scriptures,  although  I  occupy  the  affirmative,  while, 
although  my  brother  is  on  the  negative,  he  scarcely  no- 
tices an  argument  of  mine  ;  but  spends  his  time  in  read- 
ing authors  with  whom  he  is  so  unacquainted  as  not  to 
know  their  names  ;  or  in  the  delivery  of  off-hand  extem- 
poraneous speeches  and  exhorations,  entirely  foreign  to 
the  subject. 

Let  my  brother  explain  the  following  texts  : — 

"  For  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own 
will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me."  John  vi,  38. 
"Which  nature  came  down,  the  one  always  down,  or  God  ? 

"  But  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath 
power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins ;  then,  said  he,  to  the  sick 
of  the  palsy.  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed  and  go  into  thine 
house."  Matt,  ix,  6.  He  was  made  a  little  lower  than 
the  angels,"  &c.  Which  nature,  the  one  that  was  always 
lower,  or  God  ? 

"  Though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  our  sakes  he  became 
poor,"  &c.  What  nature  became  poor,  the  one  always 
poor,  or  God  ? 

"  I  have  power  to  lay  down  my  life,"  &c.  "Which 
nature  had  this  power,  the  one  that  was  mortal,  or  God 
that  could  not  die  ? 

"All  power  is  given  unto  me,"  &c.  To  which  nature 
is  all  the  power  given,  the  God  which  always  had  it,  or 
to  the  man  ? 

Let  him  answer  these,  and  I  will  present  him  with 
sixty  of  like  nature. 

The  brother's  theory  is  liable  to  the  sore  objection  of 
having  no  mediator  between  God  and  man.  Objecting 
to  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Son  of  God,  lie  has  left 
but  God  and  man,  with  no  medium,  no  mediator  between 
God  and  man  ;  no  divine  mediator,  and  no  divine  sacri- 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


135 


fice.  He  acknowledges  that  God  can  not  die ;  and  the 
Bible  says,  "  Ciu'sed  is  he  that  pntteth  ti-ust  in  man,"  &c.; 
and  Clarke  says,  that  God  will  no  more  accept  of  man's 
blood,  in  sacrifice,  than  swine^s  blood. 

I  will  now  present  him  with  some  texts,  showing  the 
peculiar  attributes  of  God  and  the  Son  of  God. 

Peculiar  Attnhutes  of  God,  in  Bihlical  and  Philo- 
sophical Arguments. 

1.  God  is  self-existent. 

2.  Omniscient. 

3.  Omnipotent. 

4.  Omnipresent. 

5.  Unbegotten  and  Unborn. 

6.  Has  no  Father. 

7.  Is  not  a  Son. 

8.  Isever  prays. 

9.  Never  gives  thanks. 

10.  He  is  always  first. 

11.  First  in  creeds,  first  in  doxologies,  first  in  prayers. 

12.  And  first  in  the  Trinity. 

13.  God  has  no  physical  body. 

14.  He  is  invisible. — Jno.  i,  18. 

15.  Only  hath  immortality. — 1  Tim.  vi,  16. 

16.  Unchangeable. — Mai.  iii,  6. 

17.  Is  the  Father  of  the  Son  of  God. 

18.  Is  worshiped  with  the  Lamb. — Kev.  v,  13. 

19.  The  God  who  gave  his  Son. 

20.  Will  finally  reign  all  in  all.— 1  Cor.  xv,  28. 

21.  To  whom  the  Son  will  be  subject. — Yerse  24. 

22.  Is  not  the  Son  of  man. — Num.  xxiii,  19. 

23.  Is  not  a  man. — Ibid. 

24.  Does  not  repent. 

25.  Can  not  be  tempted. 

26.  Does  not  sleep,  hunger,  or  thirst. 

27.  His  will  is  supreme. — Jno.  i,  38. 

28.  His  Son  is  at  his  right  hand. — Acts  vii,  56. 

29.  God  of  the  Son  of  God.—John  ii,  17. 


136 


DlSCrSSIOX  ox  THE  TRIXITY. 


30.  Only  true  God.— John  xvii,  3. 

31.  The  but  one  God  the  Father.— 1  Cor.  viii  6. 

32.  The  God  who  is  above  all. — Eph.  iv,  6. 

33.  Greater  than  the  Son. — John  xiv,  28. 

34.  Greater  than  all. — John  x,  29. 

35.  Incorruptible. — 1  Tim.  i,  17. 

36.  Only  wise  God.— Ibid. 

37.  King  eternal. — Ibid. 

Peculiarities  of  the  Son  of  God, 

1.  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God. 

2.  A  mediator  between  God  and  man. 

3.  Our  advocate  with  God. 

4.  The  Lamb  that  took  the  book  out  of  God's  right 

hand. — Rev.  v,  7. 

5.  The  way  to  God. 

6.  The  hi£^h-priest  appearing  in  the  presence  of  God. 

Heb.^ix,  2i. 

7.  The  Son  whom  God  sent. 

8.  The  Son  whom  God  gave. 

9.  The  true  viiie^  of  which  we  are  branches,  and 

God  the  husbandman. 

10.  The  Son  sent  last  of  all.    (Parable  of  vineyard.) 

11.  Son  who  sits  down  with  the  Father  in  his  throne. 

12.  "Who  maketh  intercession  for  us. — Heb.  ix,  2.5. 

13.  Son  who  shed  his  blood  for  us. — Heb.  ix,  14. 

14.  The  Lamb  of  God.— John  i,  29. 

15.  The  one  to  whom  God  gave  the  Revelation. — Rev. 

i,  1. 

16.  To  whom  God  gave  all  power. — Matt,  xxviii,  18. 

17.  Who  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  his  own 

will. — John  vi,  33. 

18.  Sought  not  his  own  glory. 

19.  Abode  all  night  in  prayer  to  God. 

20.  Cried,  My  God,  why  hast  thou  foi-saken  me. — Matt. 

xxvii.  46. 

21.  Did  all  his  works  in  his  Fathers  name. — Jno.  x,  21. 

22.  The  Prince  of  life,  who  was  killed. — Acts  iii,  15. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


13T 


23.  The  Word  that  was  with  God.— John  i,  1. 

24.  The  Word  that  was  made  flesh. — Yei-se  14. 

25.  Who  lived  bj  the  Father.— John  v,  26. 

26.  Now  lives  by  the  power  of  God. — 2  Cor.  xiii,  4. 

27.  Has  not  the  disposal  of  places  at  his  right  hand. 

Matt.  XX,  21. 

28.  Was  strengthened  by  an  angel  in  the  garden. 

Luke  xxii,  43. 

29.  Is  the  brightness  of  God's  glory. — Heb.  i,  2. 

30.  And  the  express  image  of  his  person. — Heb.  i,  3. 

Mr.  Flood's  Xinth  reply  : 

I  am  deeply  interested  in  the  brother  this  morning,  in 
view  of  the  past,  that  in  his  language,  he  has  so  completely 
reversed  the  usual  order  of  things.  I  had  hoped  that  in 
the  conducting  of  this  discussion,  the  simple,  manly, 
honorable,  argumentative  course,  would  have  been  pur- 
sued. I  had  hardly  expected,  from  the  reputation  of  my 
distinguished  brother,  that  he  would  find  it  convenient, 
in  violation  of  the  rules  of  order,  to  descend  to  personal- 
ities, in  Billingsgate.  I  regret  this,  for  the  reputation 
of  my  brother,  but  since  he  has  chosen  the  jolly  way,  I 
may  be  with  him  occasionally.  The  truth,  in  my  hands, 
shall  not  be  allowed  to  suffer,  simply  because  an  oppo- 
nent may  descend  from  that  high  stand  that  ought  to 
be  occupied,  in  a  debate  of  this  character.  He  set  out 
with  the  complaint,  that  he  wishes  you  to  notice  parti- 
cularly, that  his  opponent  has,  invariably,  shunned  his 
arguments,  and  failed  to  answer  the  texts  of  Scripture 
which  he  quoted.  He  then  makes  a  great  ado  about  my 
selections  of  authors.  He  as  much  as  intimates  that  I 
am  a  stranger  to  religious  authorities ;  this  is  a  great 
assumption,  and  something  I  would  not  have  said  of 
him.  I  accidentally  misnamed  an  author,  in  consequence 
of  taking  up  a  book,  the  appearance  of  which  was  strange 
to  me,  and  the  brother  makes  great  capital  of  this,  and 
states  that  I  am  entitled  to  credit  for  four  things,  among 
them  is  irreverence  for  the  divine  attributes.  Here  I  am 
12 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


gravely  charged  with  treating  irreverently,  the  attributes 
of  the  supreme  Jehovah.  Heaven  and  earth  are  wit- 
nesses that  I  never  felt  the  slightest  irreverence,  in 
dwelling  on  the  subject  he  regards  with  so  much  impor- 
tance. With  this,  I  leave  the  charge  for  honest  men  to 
decide.  He  says  the  spirit  of  skepticism  is  manifested 
in  me.  I  will  simply  reply  that  every  grade  of  skepti- 
cism, sympathizes  more  with  the  views  of  my  opponent. 
The  atheist  denies  the  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ ;  the  deist 
denies  the  Divinit)^  of  Jesus  Christ ;  one  of  their  authors 
says  that  the  Christians  have  deified  humanity.  We 
deify  only  the  true  Jehovah  ;  all  other  grades  of  skepti- 
cism sympathize,  more  or  less,  with  my  good  brother. 
And  should  he  select  Hindoos,  Chinese,  or  any  other 
portion  within  the  world,  and  associate  me  with  their 
views,  I  am  sure  I  will  be  willing,  so  far  as  their  views 
are  correct,  to  endure  the  affliction. 

He  says  I  am  entitled  to  credit  for  the  amount  of  wind 
I  have  expended,  and  then  he  seems  to  express  the 
idea,  that  I  became  overmuch  affected,  when  talking 
about  the  subject  of  Jordan.  My  good  brother  made 
a  speech,  about  which  I  will  not  say  it  was  whin- 
ing, but  there  certainly  seemed  to  be  crying  without 
tears,  and  I  requested  my  brother  not  to  indulge  in  such 
a  paroxysm  again.  As  regards  my  voice,  I  have  some- 
what of  a  stentorian  one.  If  I  lifted  it,  being  inspired 
with  the  great  truths  I  was  uttering,  and  it  became 
afflictive  to  my  brother,  because  it  might  find  a  lodgment 
in  honest  hearts,  if  from  this  he  regards  it  unfavorably, 
I  am  sorry.  Nothing,  he  says,  had  affected  tlie  great 
truths  which  he  represented  here,  not  even  the  floods  of 
old.  It  is  a  rare  circumstance  to  see  a  flood  on  diy 
land ;  and  I  suppose  the  presence  of  a  flood  has  been  the 
subject  of  some  interest  to  my  brother,  though  I  may  not 
have  lifted  the  flood-gates,  yet  the  brother,  however, 
seems  to  desire  the  privilege  of  a  bath. 

I  have  been  thinking  of  my  good  brother  Summerbell. 
I  do  not  know  whether  his  bell  jingles  in  the  winter ;  it 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


139 


seems  it  is  but  a  Suramerbell.  He  has  made  his  appear- 
ance among  us  here  to  rattle  his  bells.  Now  bells,  when 
sound,  are  clear  and  distinct,  but  when  they  become  un- 
sound, they  give  an  uncertain  sound  ;  and  if  so,  who  can 
prepare  himself  for  the  battle.  He  now  desires  to  know, 
whether  I  will  worship  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and 
though  this  inquiry  should  be  made  for  the  nine  thou- 
sand, nine  hundred  and  ninety-ninth  time,  I  will  answer 
him  again,  as  I  have  done  before.  He  thinks  if  I  would^ 
an  Indian  boy  would  stagger  at  the  idea.  I,  and  all  the 
orthodox  Christians,  give  to  Jesus  Christ  but  one  person, 
and  he  has  that  one  person — and  he  has  that  one  person 
and  identity  in  heaven.  That  he  was  the  Word,  or  Logos ; 
that  he  was  made  flesh,  and  came  and  dwelt  among  us ; 
that  he  was  the  brightness  of  his  Father's  glory,  and 
upheld  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power."  At  the 
shrine  of  this  God  we  worship ;  hence,  I  worship  Jesus 
Christ  as  God,  and  not  as  a  creature,  as  my  brother 
does.  I  worship  him  as  God,  possessing  the  attributes 
of  the  supreme  Jehovah,  and  hence,  he  is  entitled  to  my 
adoration.  The  brother  quotes:  " I  am  God,  and  beside 
me  there  is  no  God."  I  quote :  "  I  am  God,  and  beside 
me  there  is  no  Saviour."  There  is  but  one  God  in  the 
universe,  the  supreme  Being,  and  true  God ;  that  God 
consists  of  three  persons.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
and  these  three  are  One.  For  in  Jesus  Christ  dwelleth 
all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily ;  and  hence  it  is 
evident,  that  as  there  is  but  one  God,  that  he  consists  of 
three  persons,  equal  in  substance,  glory,  and  eternity. 
Now,  if  there  is  no  Saviour  beside  this  one  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  be  a  separate  and  distinct  being  from  the 
Father  ;  Jesus  Christ  is  no  Saviour.  This  is  a  fair  con- 
clusion ;  and  if  he  is  no  Saviour,  then  my  brother  is  here 
to-day  without  a  Saviour ;  but  I  hope  better  things  for 
him,  for  I  hope  to  meet  him  in  heaven.  He  arrives  at 
the  conclusion,  that  the  Methodists  in  England  are  con- 
nected with  the  established  church.  I  said,  and  I  repeat, 
that  they  are  as  remotely  connected,  as  far  as  all  organ- 


140 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITY. 


ization  is  concerned,  as  any  two  churches  that  exist  in 
this  countiy.  They  may  have  some  forms  of  worship 
and  discipline,  that  may  agree  with  the  Episcopal  church, 
just  as  in  my  brother's  church,  which  he  calls  the  Chris- 
tian church,  there  are  forms  the  same  as  those  of  other 
denominations  that  existed  before  they  were  thought  of. 
For  this  Christian  church,  as  it  is  called,  dates  back, 
perhaps,  half  a  centuiy. 

Xow  here,  with  reference  to  the  word  Christian,  I  pre- 
sume that  the  term  was  received  by  the  Christians,  in  the 
same  way  that  the  Methodists  were  first  called  Method- 
ists. The  Christians  were  first  so  called  at  Antioch ;  but 
there  was  a  church  before  that  time  at  Jerusalem,  but 
they  came  to  be  distinct,  as  Christians,  at  Antioch,  and 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  was  given  as  an  epithet  of 
reproach  to  the  followers  of  Christ.  The  Methodists 
received  their  designation,  as  a  body  of  disciples,  at 
Oxford,  one  hundred  and  forU'  years  ago,  when  they  met 
for  the  purpose  of  worship.  It  had  been  previously  given 
to  a  body  by  the  Romish  church,  but  Mr.  Wesley  con- 
sented to  be*^  called  Methodist,  by  the  world,  though  it 
was  regarded  as  a  term  of  reproach,  upon  the  principle, 
to  be  counted  anything,  or  nothing,  for  Jesus*  sake.  The 
brother  says,  he  would  like  to  have  his  opponent  to  hloio 
and  strike  for  him.  I  would  not  express  so  mean  an 
opinion,  that  1  would  take  him  into  apprenticeship.  1 
am  not  disposed  to  treat  a  Gospel  minister  in  so  light  a 
manner,  as  though  it  were  a  trade  or  profession.  I 
regard  it  as  a  high  calling  of  God,  in  Christ  Jesus ; 
hence,  however  desirable  it  may  be,  to  have  my  good 
brother  with  me,  to  labor  in  the  cause  of  Christ,  I  could 
not  presume  to  scornfully  treat  him  as  an  apprentice  boy, 
whose  first  exercises  were  those  of  blowing  and  striking. 
He  inquires  again,  respecting  the  sacrifice  of  Christ's 
human  nature.  I  assume  that  Jesus  Christ  sufi:ered  upon 
the  altar  of  Divinity,  a  sacrifice,  a  perfect  human  nature  ; 
that  the  Divinity  could  not  do  this,  and  that  the  human 
nature  was  associated  with  it,  that  it  might  die,  and  it 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


141 


became  indispensable  to  the  Word,  or  Logos,  to  be  identi- 
fied with  the  humanity.  How  this  is  sustained,  I  never 
presume  to  explain.  He  asserts  the  existence  of  two 
natures,  but  only  one  person — by  the  orthodox  he  is 
worshiped  as  God,  possessing  all  the  attributes  of  the 
Divine  mind.  He  thinks,  however,  that  if  omnipotence 
passed  over  to  the  humanity,  then  my  God  would  have 
been  annihilated.  It  has  nowhere  been  asserted,  that 
omnipotence  did  pass  over  to  humanity,  but  that  Jesus 
Christ,  as  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity,  did  possess 
all  power,  majesty,  and  glory.  "  All  power,"  he  says, 
"  is  given  into  my  hands."  I  shall  notice  again,  the 
clearly  logical  conclusion  and  Scriptural  testimony,  in 
favor  of  the  omnipotence,  omniscience,  and  omnipresence 
of  Jesus  Christ ;  the  essential  attributes  of  the  Divine 
mind  center  in  him.  I  have  never  said  that  his  human 
nature  itself,  separated  from  the  Divinity,  possessed  these 
attributes.  Hence  my  brother  cavils  at  his  own  work.  He 
asserts  that  his  brother  is  ignorant  of  the  knowledge  of 
God,  and  I  speak  this  to  his  shame.  Exceedingly  cour- 
teous, this.  I  think  him  very  respectful  !  It  is  generally 
thought,  that  even  little  boys  at  school,  are  discouraged 
by  being  charged  with  ignorance.  I  would  not  take  the 
liberty  with  a  school-boy.  But  my  brother  takes  the 
liberty  of  arraigning  his  opponent,  and  saying,  "  My 
brother  is  ignorant  of  the  knowledge  of  God." 

For  the  present,  my  brother,  I  will  not  retort  upon 
you.  He  must  have  been  very  much  disquieted  during 
the  night.  He  has  possibly  spent  a  sleepless  night,  on  a 
thorny  couch,  arising  from  the  failure  of  the  arguments 
he  presented,  and  he  is  thus  so  discouraged,  that  he  is 
obliged  to  bellow  out  those  things.  He  seeks  to  enlighten 
me,  by  referring  me  to  a  Hindoo  author.  He  did  not,  as 
a  wise  servant  of  God,  take  up  the  Scripture  oracles,  as 
1  have  been  laboring  to  do. 

What  is  the  character  of  his  Christ,  and  his  Saviour  ? 
and  what  relation  does  he  sustain  to  God  ?  and  what 
kindredship  to  humanity  ?    This  point,  my  good  brother 


142 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


has  very  carefully  avoided.  But  he  tells  what  a  Hindoo 
author  has  to  talk  about,  and  drives  off  from  the  land  of 
Bibles,  and  Christian  churches,  to  enlighten  his  poor, 
besotted,  ignorant  brother,  about  the  Hindoo  creed.  Now 
he  desires  me  to  pay  some  attention  to  his  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture. John  V,  26,  "  For  as  the  Father  hath  life  in 
himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in 
himself."  He  requests  that  I  should  notice,  and  answer 
this.  I  will  try  to  do  so.  It  is  a  text  I  have  quoted 
several  times ;  I  am  sorry  my  brother  has  forgotten  it. 
"  I  have  power  to  lay  my  life  down,  and  I  have  power  to 
take  it  again."  "No  man,"  Christ  said,  "  taketh  my 
life  from  me."  I  understand  by  this,  that  Christ  has 
omnipotent  power  to  sit  in  his  humanity,  or  Divinity. 
We  never  had  but  one  person.  I  have  power,  says 
Christ.  He  is  careful  to  know  which  nature  makes  this 
assertion.  I  hold  that  there  is  but  one  Christ,  and  that 
he  has  almighty  power ;  that  he  asserts  this  as  God,  and 
could  not  assert  it  if  he  were  not  God.  He  quotes  Heb. 
ii,  9.  "  But  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower 
than  the  angels,  for  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned  with 
glory  and  honor,  that  he,  by  the  grace  of  God,  should 
taste  death  for  Qvevy  man."  He  desires  I  should  explain 
this  passage:  " he  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels." 
In  his  human  nature ;  not  in  his  Divine  nature.  It  could 
not  be  in  his  Divine  nature  ;  for  were  he  equal,  or  infe- 
rior, he  could  not  have  said,  "  Let  all  the  angels  of  God 
worship  him."  Hence  this  reference  is  doubtless  to 
the  human  nature,  being  made  a  little  lower  than  the 
angels.  This  accords  with  the  language  of  the  Psalmist 
to  the  apostle — corroborates  the  same.  That  he  was  made 
a  little  lower  than  the  angels,  does  not  indicate  humilia- 
tion in  his  Divine  nature.  He  was  infinitely  above  the 
angels,  and  thereby  entitled  to  their  adoration  and  wor- 
ship. "  Though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  our  sakes  he  became 
poor."  In  which  of  these  natures  did  he  become  poor  ? 
Here  my  brother  supposes  he  has  met  with  a  very  serious 
difficulty.  We  remark,  that  Jesus  Christ,  in  his  incarna 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


143 


tion,  disowned  himself,  voluntarilv,  the  riches  and  glory 
of  this  world.  He  was  the  poorest  of  beings,  as  far  as 
earthly  comfort  was  concerned.  Ilis  life  was  a  life  of 
sacrifice,  and  of  toil.  He  did  not  come  as  an  heir  of  an 
earthly  estate,  bnt  was  born  of  poor  parents.  He  found 
his  first  bed  in  the  manger  of  a  stable,  and  from  this 
appeared — throughout  his  entu*e  life,  he  was  depriyed  of 
the  ordinary  comforts  that  other  men  enjoy.  Though 
boundless  riches  were  at  his  command,  thrones,  domin- 
ions, principalities,  and  powei-s,  all  things  were  made  by 
him,  and  for  him  ;  yet  we  find  him  for  thirty-three  years 
extremely  poor.  "The  foxes  haye  holes,''  said  he,  **and 
the  birds  of  the  air  haye  nests  ;  but  the  Son  of  Man  hath 
not  where  to  lay  his  head.''  I  thank  the  one  Hying  and 
true  Gotl,  that  Jesus  Christ  did  thus  become  poor,  that 
we,  through  his  poverty,  might  be  rich. 

Mr  Scmmekbell's  Tenth  address : 

My  brother  poured  a  stream  of  personalities  upon  me, 
which,  of  coui-se,  he  considered  added  greatly  to  the 
force  of  his  speech ;  but  it  makes  little  difference  to  me, 
so  I  defend  my  Sayiour — and  such  arguments  are  not 
very  conyinciug  to  intelligent  people — yet  they  haye  been 
the  most  weighty  ones  offered  in  favor  of  creed-doctrines 
for  many  years. 

By  irreverence  to  the  divine  attributes,  I  alluded  to  his 
making  one  destroy  another,  and  asserting  that  if  God 
gave  all  power  to  the  Son,  that  he  ceased  to  be  God,  &c. 
He  yet  insists  that  all  power  was  given  to  Christ.  Very 
well.  He  defines  all  power  to  be  omnipotence;  but  he 
thinks  that  it  was  not  given  to  the  humanity.  Surely  it 
was  not  given  to  God  the  Son — to  the  divinity.  Come,  bro- 
ther, explain.  You  thus  make  your  logic  destroy  your 
God.  I  am  sorry  for  you — but  cannot  aid  you  except 
by  showing  you  a  more  excellent  way.  Because  I  read  a 
Hindoo  author,  who  classed  the  idolatrous  Hindoos  all 
on  my  brother's  side,  he  seems  to  be  much  ti'oubled.  I 
do  not  know  what  he  will  do  about  it.    He  agrees  with 


144 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRIXITT. 


Clarke,  and  Clarke,  who  acknowledges  that  the  Trinity  is 
not  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament,  goes  to  the  heathen 
writings,  and  finds  it  recorded  there,  while  it  was 
not  revealed  to  the  Jews.  Let  me  read  Clarke  on 
John  i. 

"Testimonies  concerning  the  personality,  attribntes, 
and  influence  of  the  "WORD  of  God  taken  from  the  Zend 
Avesta,  and  other  writings  attributed  to  Zoroaster.  '  Let 
thy  terrible  WORD,  which  I  pronounce.  O  Ormusd  !  ele- 
vate itself  on  high.  May  it  be  great  before  thee  and  sat- 
isfy my  desires.'  Zoroaster  consulted  Ormusd,  and  spoke 
thus  to  him :  '  O  Ormusd,  absorbed  in  excellence,  just 
judge  of  the  world,  pure,  who  existed  by  thy  own  power, 
what  is  that  great  AYORD  given  by  God — that  living 
and  powerful  WORD.  O  Ormusd,  tell  me  plainly,  who 
existed  before  the  heavens,  before  the  waters,  before  the 
earth,  before  the  flocks,  before  the  fire,  the  child  of  Or- 
musd, before  men,  before  the  whole  race  of  existing  be- 
ings, before  all  the  benefits,  and  before  all  the  pure  germs 
given  by  Ormusd  V 

Again  I  will  read  Clarke  on  Luke  i : 

"  BRAHMA  ;  the  Deity  in  his  creative  quality. 

YISHXOO ;  he  who  filleth  all  space  ;  the  Deity  in 
his  preserving  quality. 

MAHESA  ;  the  Deity  in  his  destroying  quality." 

"This,-'  says  Clarke,  "is  properly  the  "Hindoo  Trin- 
ity: for  these  three  names  belong  to  the  same  being." 

Thus  you  see,  by  the  testimony  of  their  own  authority, 
the  Trinity  existed  among  the  heathen,  and  was  plainly 
set  forth  in  their  writings,  while  yet  there  was  not  a  word 
of  it  in  the  Bible.  By  turning  to  the  Chinese,  we  find 
also,  the  Trinity  among  them. 

^  I  will  read '•again  from  Clarke:  "Testimonies  con- 
cerning a  Trinity  among  the  Chinese,  and  concerning 
the  word  of  God. 

"Among  the  ancient  Chinese  characters  which  have 
been  preserved,  we  find  the  following  (A),  like  the  Greek 
delta,  and  since  written  (H).    According  to  the  Chinese 


DISCUSSION  OS  THE  TRDsITT. 


145 


dictionary,  Kanp:hi,  this  character  signifies  union.  Ac- 
cording to  Choue-ouen,  a  celebrated  work,  A  is  three 
united  in  one.  The  Lieou  chou  tsing  hoen,  which  is  a 
rationiil  and  learned  explanation  of  ancient  characters, 
says,  'a  signifies  intimate  union,  harmony,  the  chief  good 
of  man,  of  the  heaven  and  of  the  earth,  'tis  the  union  of 
three.' " 

My  brother  charged  me  with  atheistical  tendencies.  I 
do  not  wish  to  retort — but  all  can  see  that  although  his 
doctrine  is  not  in  the  Bible,  it  existed  among  the  heathen 
long  before  it  did  in  the  church,  according  to  their  best 
authorities. 

Let  me  read  you  the  more  Christian  views  of  Philo  Ju- 
deas,  on  the  "Woed  :  "  The  Wo^  by  which  the  world  was 
made,  is  the  image  of  the  supreme  Deity,  as  we  perceive 
the  sun's  light  though  the  sun  itself,  is  not  seen — and 
behold  the  brightness  of  the  moon,  though  its  orb  may 
not  appear  to  the  eye ;  so  men  look  up  to,  and  acknow- 
ledge the  likeness  of  God  in  his  minister,  the  Logos, 
whom  they  esteem  as  God."  He  attempts  to  describe 
his  nature  by  representing  him  as  not  uncreated  like  God, 
nor  yet  created  as  man,  but  of  a  divine  substance.  For 
the  Word  of  God,  which  is  above  all  the  host  of  heaven, 
cannot  be  comprehended  by  human  wisdom;  having 
nothing  in  his  nature  that  is  perceptible  to  mortal  sense. 
For  being  the  image  pf  God,  and  the  oldest  of  all  intelli- 
gent beings,  he  is  seated  immediately  next  to  the  one 
God,  without  any  interval  of  separation.  This,  in  the 
language  of  Scripture,  '  is  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of 
God.'  "  He  adds,  "  For  not  being  liable  to  any  volun- 
taiy  or  involuntary  change  or  falling  off,  he  has  God  for 
his  lot  and  portion,  and  his  residence  is  in  God."  The 
like  is  mentioned  in  another  place,  where  he  is  repre- 
sented as  sinless,  and  as  the  great  High-priest  of  the 
world.  We  maintain  that  by  the  (true)  High-priest,  is 
not  meant  a  man,  but  the  divine  Word,  who'is  free  from 
all  voluntary  and  involuntary  transgi-essions,  being  of 
heavenly  parentage,  born  of  God  and  of  that  divine  wis- 
13 


14:3  DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 

\ 

dom,  by  which  all  things  were  produced.  He  speaks  to 
the  same  purpose  in  another  place,  wliere  he  makes  men- 
tion of  the  "Word." — Clarke,  on  John  i. 

He  gave  a  very  witty  exposition  of  my  name;  all  very 
well  in  its  place,  but  quite  out  of  place  here. 

With  respect  to  worshiping  the  human  nature  of 
Christ,  my  brother  is  yet  in  difficulty.  They  say,  that  he 
was  "very  God  and  very  man,"  and  these  are  united 
never  to  be  divided.  Xow,  if  they  do  not  divide  them 
in  their  worship,  but  as  he  says,  they  worship  Christ  as 
God,  does  he  not  worship  the  very  mmi  as  God '{  and, 
hence  he  is,  according  to  his  own  showing,  an  idolater.  I 
do  not  say  this  of  myself,  but  according  to  his  own  exposi- 
tion, he  worships  Christ  as  a  whole  Christ  in  one  person, 
very  God  and  very  man,  with  human  soul  and  a  physical 
body.  This  makes  him  worship  four  persons.  For  God 
is  three  persons,  and  a  very  man  with  human  soul  and 
body,  and  all  things  pertaining  to  man's  nature  is  an- 
other person,  and  that  makes  four  persons.  Is  this  in 
accordance  with  the  Bible  ?  And  yet  he  anathematizes 
his  brother.  My  brother  quotes  from  the  Old  Testament, 
"I  am  God,  and  beside  me  there  is  no  Saviour,"  and 
concludes,  if  there  be  no  Saviour  but  this  God,  and  Jesus 
be  a  separate  heing  from  the  Eather,  then  he  is  no  Savi- 
our. Why  does  he  not  say  a  distinct  j9f  ^  He  be- 
lieves that  he  is,  and  the  text  says,  beside  "772^,"  i.  e., 
only  one  person.  So  that  my  brother  turns  Jew,  and 
denies  Christ.  Let  me  ask.  Is  my  brother's  "  very  man  " 
a  Saviour,  or  is  the  man,  that  God  ?  The  true  explana- 
tion of  the  text  is  this,  that  this  was  written  before  Christ 
was  sent  to  be  a  Saviour ;  still,  Christ  is  not  a  Saviour 
'beside^  or  independent  of  God,  but  God  saves  us  by  his 
Son.  My  brother  next  speaks  of  the  Christian  name,  as 
though  it  were  some  sectarian  name,  like  Methodist ;  but 
Clarke  gives  up,  that  the  name  Christian,  was  given  by 
divine  appointment ;  and  my  brother  will  not  deny  his 
own  authority,  though  he  denies  the  Christian  name. 

He  says,  that  he  has  nowhere  asserted,  that  omnipo- 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


14T 


tence  passed  over  to  the  human  nature.  Indeed !  My 
brother's  way  is  not  only  novel ^  but  veiy  crooked. 

I  appeal  to  you,  whether  you  have  not  heard  that  ar- 
gument here  ?  But  to  whom,  or  what,  then,  was  all 
power  given  ?  Not  to  the  divinity,  surely  ?  He  says, 
that  the  Son  was  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity ;  but 
the  other  day,  he  denied  that  the  Son  was  eternal,  only 
claiming  eternity  for  the  Logos.  He  now  says,  that  the 
Son  received  all  power ;  but  will  not  this  annihilate  the 
two  other  persons,  according  to  his  former  argument? 
He  only  shifts  the  difficulty,  but  does  not  get  rid  of  it. 
If  all  power  be  given,  it  must  be  given  to  God  or  man ; 
which  was  it  ?  He  complains  that  I  do  not  give  the 
Bible  as  my  authority ;  yet  in  the  next  breath,  says,  I  will 
now  answer  some  of  his  texts,'-  but  then  complains,  that 
he  '*has  not  time  to  answer  them  all.''  That  is,  /  do 
not  quote  Bible  authority,  yet  he  has  not  time  to  answer 
all  the  texts  I  quote  from  the  Bible.  He  again  refers  to 
the  text,  "  I  have  power  to  lay  down  my  life."  I  ask, 
Has  God  power  to  lay  down  his  life  ?  My  brother  con- 
tends that  he  has  not,  and  yet  quotes  the  text  to  prove 
that  he  has  I  You  see,  my  brother  believes  that  he  has. 
Do  not  thousands  believe  it  ? 

■  Let  me  read  you  a  few  extracts  from  their  best  authors, 
and  see  what  Trinitarians  say:  "God,  the  mighty  Makek, 
died  for  man,  the  creature's  sin." — Dr.  Watts.  The 
very  heart  of  God  bleeding,  and  the  sole  author  of  life 
expiring." — Dr.  Barroic.  "  He,  the  Christian  believes 
him  to  have  been  a  weak  child,  and  carried  in  arms,  who 
is  the  Almighty,  and  him  once  to  have  died,  who  only 
hath  life  and  immortality  in  himself." — Lord  Bacon. 

Dr.  South  speaks  of  him :  "Who  created,  and  at  pres- 
ent governs,  and  shall  hereafter  judge  the  world ;"  as 
being  "  abused  in  all  his  concerns  and  relations,  spit 
upon,  mocked,  and  at  last  crucified."  "Hereby  perceive 
we  the  love  of  God,  because  he  laid  down  his  life  for  us." 
Jno.  i,  16.  Though  there  is  nothing,  in  the  Greek,  cor- 
responding to  the  word  God  in  this  passage,  yet,  as  it 


148 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


was  inserted  by  the  English  translators,  who  were  Trini- 
tarians, I  see  not  how  it  can  be  objected  to  as  evidence 
in  this  case,  as  proving  that  they  believe  that  God  died. 

Machiight  says :  "  It  need  not  surprise  us  that  Christ 
in  the  flesh  is  called  '  God  over  all  blessed  forever,  since 
God  hath  highly  exalted  him  '  in  the  human  nature, '  and 
given  him  a  name  above  every  name,'  Phil,  ii,  29  ;  '  and 
hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet,'  1  Cor.  xv,  27 ;  '  and 
will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness,  by  that  man  whom 
he  hath  ordained.'  "   Acts  xvii,  31. 

He  complains  that  my  bell  gives  such  an  uncertain 
sound,  that  he  cannot  prepare  for  the  battle.  I  think 
that  he  understands  the  sound,  however,  and  that  this  is 
the  reason  why  he  cannot  prepare  for  the  battle.  He 
thinks  that  at  his  incarnation  Christ  divested  himself  of 
his  glorj^,  and  became  poor  —  what  Christ  ?  not  the 
human  infant  surely,  but  the  Divinity.  He  says  that 
"he  was  very  poor  for  thirty-three  years!"  That  is, 
God  was  very  poor  thirty-three  years !  for  such  is  the 
only  rational  construction  of  his  words.  Let  that  pass. 
Try  it  again,  my  brother.  It  will  hardly  do  to  say  that 
the  unchangeable  God  was  very  poor  for  thirty -three 
years  !  Tliat  the  God,  without  a  body,  had  not  where 
to  lay  his  head. 

He  says  on  Heb.  ii,  9,  that  it  was  the  human  nature 
that  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels.  This  will 
not  do,  for  that  always  was  lower,  and  needed  not  to  be 
made  lower.  "  Ye  know  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  that  though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  our  sakes  he 
became  poor."  This  could  not  be  the  unchangeable  God, 
for  he  never  became  poor,  nor  the  human  nature,  for  that 
had  never  been  rich  !  It  is  true  of  the  Son  of  God,  and 
is  good  Christian  doctrine ;  but  these  texts  are  capable 
of  no  explanation,  according  to  their  system.  It  will 
not  do  to  say  that  God  became  poor,  and  was  made  a 
little  low^er  than  tlie  angels. 

I  will  now  present  my  brother  w^ith  another  list  of 
arguments  and  texts  upon  this  subject. 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


149 


1.  According  to  their  system,  Jesus  was  that  Father 
who  sent  him. 

2.  That  God  who  gave  him. 

3.  The  God  whom  he  prayed  to. 

4.  That  God  he  came  cfUt  from. 

5.  They  believe  that  he  is  the  God  who  begat  him. 

6.  And  the  God  who  sent  him. 

7.  They  believe  that  when  he  prayed,  he  prayed  to 
himself. 

8.  That  he  thanked  himself,  and  sent  himself,  and 
glorified  himself. 

9.  That  he  bore  witness  of  himself. 

10.  Came  out  from  himself,  and  went  back  to  himself. 

11.  They  believe  that  he  sits  at  his  own  right  hand. 

12.  Is  his  own  Father  and  his  own  Son. 

13.  That  as  our  advocate,  he  pleads  with  himself. 

14.  As  our  intercessor,  he  prays  to  his  divine  nature. 

15.  As  our  sacrifice,  he  is  offered  to  his  divine  nature. 

16.  As  our  atonement,  he  pays  his  divine  nature. 

17.  As  our  Mediator,  he  stands  between  us  and  his 
divine  nature. 

18.  Sits  down  at  the  right  hand  of  his  divine  nature. 

19.  Is  ignorant  of  what  his  omniscient  nature  knows. 

20.  Cannot  do  what  his  omnipotent  nature  does. 

21.  Was  glad  he  was  not  where  his  omnipresent  nature 
was. 

22.  That  he  left  heaven,  but  remained  there  at  the 
same  time. 

Now,  if  my  brother  can  make  this  congregation 
swallow  all  these  contradictions,  I  am  much  mistaken. 

Thirty  texts  containing  the  words  of  Jesus,  which  are 
plainly  contradicted  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

1.  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will. 
John  vi,  38.    Yes,  your  own  will,  they  reply. 

2.  I  must  be  about  my  Father's  l3usiness.  Luke  ii,  49. 
Ko,  it 's  your  own  business. 

3.  All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father, 
Matt.  X,  34.    You  always  had  all  things. 


150 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


4.  Luke  xi,  20,  If  I  with  the  finger  of  God  cast  out 
devils.    No,  3^ou  do  it  by  yourself. 

5.  N'o  man  hath  ascended  up  into  heaven,  but  the  Son 
of  man,  which  is  in  heaven.  John  iii,  13.  No,  not  the 
Son  of  man,  but  the  divine  nature. 

6.  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  be- 
gotten Son.    John  iii,  16.    No,  he  came  himself. 

7.  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me. 
John  iii,  34.    No,  but  your  own  will. 

8.  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself.  John  v,  19. 
Yes,  he  can  do  all  things  of  himself. 

9.  The  Father  hath  given  the  Son  to  have  life  in 
himself.  John  v,  23.  The  Son  is  self-existent  with  the 
Father. 

10.  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing.  John  v,  30. 
He  can  of  his  own  self  do  all  things. 

11.  I  am  come  in  my  Father's  name.  John  vii,  43. 
No,  in  his  own  name. 

12.  My  doctrine  is  not  mine.  John  vii,  16.  Yes  it 
is  his. 

13.  If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of 
the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak 
of  myself  John  vii,  17.  He  speaks  of  himself,  when 
he  speaks  of  God. 

14.  I  am  not  come  of  myself.  John  vii,  28.  They 
say  that  he  did  come  of  himself. 

15.  I  go  to  him  that  sent  me.  John  vii,  33.  They 
don't  believe  that  he  came  out  from  God. 

16.  I  do  nothing  of  myself,  but  as  the  Father  hath 
taught  me,  I  speak  these  things.  John  viii,  28.  He 
can  do  all  things  of  himself,  say  they. 

17.  I  speak  that  which  I  have  seen  with  my  Father. 
John  viii,  38. 

18.  The  truth  which  I  have  heard  of  God.  John 
viii,  40. 

19.  I  proceeded  forth  and  came  from  God,  neither 
came  I  of  myself,  but  he  sent  me.    John  viii,  42. 

20.  I  seek  not  mine  own  glory.    John  viii,  50. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TKINITT. 


151 


21.  If  I  honor  myself,  my  honor  is  nothing ;  it  is  the 
Father  that  honoreth  me,  of  whom  ye  say,  that  he  is 
your  God.  John  viii,  54.  Here  Jesus  clearly  distin- 
guishes between  God  and  himself. 

22.  I  have  power  to  lay  down  my  life,  and  I  have 
power  to  take  it  again.  This  commandment  have  I  re- 
ceived of  my  Father.    John  x,  18. 

23.  I  said  I  am  the  S(y)i  of  God.  John  x,  36.  No, 
the  Jews  understood  him  to  make  himself  God,  and  they 
were  right,  says  my  brother. 

24.  I  have  not  spoken  of  myself,  but  the  Father  gave 
me  a  commandment,  what  I  should  say.    John  xii,  49. 

25.  Even  as  the  Father  hath  said  unto  me,  so  I  speak. 
John  xii,  50. 

26.  I  will  pray  the  Father.    John  xiv,  16. 

27.  Of  that  day  knoweth  no  man — no  not  the  angels, 
neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only.  Mark  xiii,  32  ; 
Matt,  xxiv,  36. 

28.  All  power  is  given  unto  me.  Matt,  xxviii,  18. 
No,  "  we  will  not  trust  in  delegated  power,"  say  they. 

29.  Father,  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know 
thee,  the  only  trae  God.  John  xvii,  1-3.  No,  the  Son 
and  Holy  Ghost  are  just  as  much  the  true  God,  as  the 
Father. 

30.  I  ascend  to  my  Father,  and  to  your  Father,  to  my 
God,  and  to  your  God.    John  xxi,  17. 

I  want  my  brother  to  explain  to  us  how  he  can  be  de- 
fending Methodism,  while  he  is  at  one  time  renouncing 
one  part  of  it,  and  at  another  time  another  part !  I  am 
willing  to  admit,  that  he  possesses  wit — a  good  degree  of 
knowledge,  and  considerable  power,  and  that  he  is  capa- 
ble of  bringing  forward  all  those  proof-texts  generally 
relied  upon ;  and  in  short,  that  he  could  defend  the  doc- 
trine, if  it  could  be  defended  ;  but  it  cannot.  It  cannot 
be  found  in  the  Bible,  and  how  can  it  be  defended  by  it? 
He  has  already  given  up  a  goodly  portion  of  his  creed, 
and  I  want  him  to  acknowledge  it.  Tell  the  congrega- 
tion, brother,  whether  you  have  not  given  it  up.  Have 


152 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TKIXITY. 


you  not  given  np  Art.  first,  which  says,  that  God  has 

no  body  ?    Have  you  not  given  up  Art.  second,  which 

says,  that  the  two  natures  were  never  to  be  separated  ? 

Have  you  not  given  up  that  the  Son,  the  second  person 

in  the  Trinity,  w  as  not  eternal  ? 

I  will  now  present  you  a  number  of  texts,  showing  the 

promises,  blessings,  and  the  virtue  of  the  Christian's  faith 

in  the  Son  of  God. 

Jesus  said,  Matt.  xvi.  15,  '*  Whom  say  ye  that  I  am  V 
Peter  answered,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 

living  God  !*' 

Jems  replied,  "  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Barjona,  for 
flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee ;  but  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven." 

But  no  blessing  is  pronounced  for  believing  the 
Trinity  I 

John  XX,  30.  Many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in 
the  presence  of  his  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in 
this  book ;  but  these  are  written,  that  ye  might  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  be- 
lieving ye  might  have  life  in  his  name.*'  Bat  no  books 
are  written  that  we  might  believe  the  Trinity. 

The  Eunuch  inquired.  Acts  viii,  36,  ''What  doth 
hinder  me  to  be  baptized 

Philip  said,  "If  thou  believest  with  all  thy  heart, 
thou  mayest." 

The  Eunuch  replied,  '*!  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  God  ;  and  he  baptized  him."'  But  no  one  was 
baptized  on  the  profession  of  faith  in  the  Trinity. 

Acts  ix,  20.  Paul  preached  Christ  in  the  synagogues, 
that  he  is  the  Son  of  God.  But  no  one  preached  the 
Trinity  in  those  days. 

1  John  iv,  15.  ""Whosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus 
is  the  Son  of  God.  God  dwelleth  in  him  and  he  in  God." 
But  there  is  no  promise  for  confessing  the  Trinity. 

1  John  V,  4.  '•  This  is  the  victory  that  overcometh 
the  world,  even  our  faith :  who  is  he  that  overcometh 
the  world  :  but  he  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


153 


of  God."  But  there  is  no  promise  for  believing  the 
Trinity. 

1  John  V,  9.  "  If  we  receive  the  witness  of  men,  the 
witness  of  God  is  greater :  for  this  is  the  witness  of  God 
which  he  hath  testified  of  his  Son."  But  God  never 
beai's  witness  to  the  Trinity. 

1  John  v,  10.  ''He  that  believeth  in  the  Son  of  God 
hath  the  witness  in  himself."  But  he  that  believeth  the 
Trinity  must  look  to  his  creed. 

1  John  V,  10.  He  that  believeth  not  God  hath 
made  him  a  liar:  because  he  believeth  not  the  record 
that  God  gave  of  his  Son."  But  no  person  is  thus  de- 
nounced for  disbelieving  the  Trinity. 

1  John  V,  11.  "God  hath  given  us  eternal  life  ;  and 
this  life  is  in  his  Son."  But  the  Bible  never  says  that 
it  is  in  the  Trinity. 

1  John  V,. 12.  "He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life." 
But  it  is  nowhere  said,  that  he  that  hath  the  Trinity  hath 
life. 

1  John  V,  12.  "  He  that  hath  not  the  Son  hath  not 
life."  But  it  is  nowhere  said,  that  he  that  hath  not  the 
Trinity  hath  not  life. 

1  John  V,  13.  "  These  things  have  I  written  unto  you 
that  believe  on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God."  But  no- 
thing is  written  to  them  that  believe  the  Trinity. 

1  John  V,  13.  "That  ye  may  know  that  ye  have 
eternal  life."  But  nowhere  does  it  say,  that  he  that 
believeth  the  Trinity  hath  eternal  life. 

1  John  V,  13.  "And  that  ye  may  believe  on  the 
name  of  the  Son  of  God."  But  nowhere  does  he  write, 
that  we  may  believe  the  Trinity. 

1  John  ii,  33.  "  Whoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same 
hath  not  the  Father."  But  there  is  no  such  danger  in 
denying  the  Trinity. 

1  John  ii,  23.  "He  that  acknowledgeth  the  Son, 
hath  the  Father  also."  So  that  Christians  have  both ; 
but  they  who  deny  the  Son  have  neither. 

1  John  iii,  23.    "  This  is  His  commandment,  that  we 


154 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


should  believe  on  the  name  of  His  Son  Jesns  Christ." 
But  there  is  no  commanchnent  to  believe  the  Trinity. 

2  Peter  i,  17.  God  said^  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son, 
in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  But  he  never  said,  this  is 
myself  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased. 

O,  that  Trinitarians  would  believe  the  truth,  that  they 
might  claim  these  blessings. 

Here  is  the  highest  authority  to  prove  that  the  Trinity 
is  not  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  but  is  a  con- 
clusion to  which  some  have  come  from  premises  growing 
out  of  other  things.    Says  Neander  : 

"We  now  proceed  to  the  doctrine  in  which  Theism,  taken 
in  its  connection  with  the  proper  and  fundamental  essence 
of  Christianity,  or  with  the  doctrine  of  redemption,  finds 
its  ultimate  completion,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
This  doctrine  does  not  strictly  belong  to  the  fundamental 
articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  as  appears  sufficiently  evi- 
dent from  the  fact,  that  it  is  expressly  held  forth  in  no 
one  particular  passage  of  the  New  Testament ;  for  the 
only  one  in  which  this  is  done,  the  passage  relating  to 
the  three  that  bear  record,  John  i,  5,  is  undoubtedly  spu- 
rious, and  in  its  ungenuine  shape  testifies  to  the  fact,  how 
foreign  such  a  collocation  is  from  the  style  of  the  New 
Testament  scriptures.  AVe  find  in  the  New  Testament 
no  other  fundamental  argument  beside  that  of  w^hich  the 
Apostle  Paul  says,  that  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay, 
than  that  is  laid — the  annunciation  of  Jesus  as  the  Mes- 
siah ;  and  Christ  himself  designates,  as  the  foundation 
of  his  religion,  faith  in  the  only  true  God,  and  in  Jesus 
Christ  whom  he  hath  sent.  John  xvii,  3.  What  Paul 
styles  distinctively  the  mystery,  relates,  in  no  one  in- 
stance, to  what  belongs  to  the  hidden  depths  of  the  Divine 
Essence,  but  to  the  divine  purpose  of  salvation,  which 
found  its  accomplishment  in  a  fact."    Neander.,  i,  572. 

It  is  professedly  made  up  of  a  text  here  and  a  text 
there — one  taken  from  one  place  and  one  from  another  ; 
and  not  one  of  them  saying  anything  about  it.  If  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  in  the  Bible,  let  my  brother 


DISCTTSSI03T  ON  THE  TRINITT. 


155 


find  it  there  and  show  it  to  us,  and  the  controversy  will 
be  ended.  I  want  you  especially  to  mark  the  course  of 
my  brother  in  defending  his  Articles  of  Religion. 

"^He  says  that  God  has  body,  and  consequently,  Art. 
Ist,  which  says  He  has  not  a  body,  is  not  true.  All  the 
while  that  he  is  speaking  in  defense  of  his  creed,  he  is 
giving  up  first  one  part  and  then  another.  Why  does 
he  not  renounce  it  altogether,  and  take  the  Apostolic 
creed,  the  Bible  ? 

But  his  views  on  the  Son  of  God  are  very  question- 
able. O,  deny  not  the  Son  of  God,  my  brother !  We 
need  that  precious  Mediator — we  need  thxit  person  who 
came  out  from  God,  and  went  back  to  God,  to  stand 
between  God  and  man  as  our  mediator — as  a  medium 
between  the  Great  Creator,  the  Eternal  One,  and  the 
creature,  poor,  finite  man.  We  need  that  one  who, 
when  no  man  was  found  able  to  open  the  book,  came 
and  took  it  out  of  the  right  hand  of  him  that  sat  on  the 
throne;  who,  when  dying,  said,  Father,  forgive  them, 
they  know  not  what  they  do !  Ilis  system  unites  God 
and  man,  veiy  God  and  very  man,  without  medium  or 
mediator ;  and  the  Son  of  God  is  lost  sight  of. 

I  will  now  present  my  brother  with  some  reasons  for 
rejecting  the  Trinity : 

1.  It  pretends  to  understand  God  better  than  the 
Bible. 

2.  It  requires  more  than  God  requires. 

3.  It  gives  God  an  anti-Bible  name. 

4.  It  divides  the  supreme  Being  or  Essence. 

5.  It  makes  one  part  of  God  inferior  to  another. 

6.  It  numbers  the  persons  or  parts  of  God  and  their 
relative  dignity. 

7.  It  gives  one  part  of  God  properties  which  the 
others  do  not  possess. 

8.  It  makes  God  to  be  three  persons,  whereas  the  Bible 
says  "  God  is  one." 

9.  It  makes  Christ  two  persons,  one  very  God  and  the 
other  very  man,  with  two  spirits,  two  natures,  two  minds. 


156  DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 

10.  It  ascribes  all  the  merits  and  sufferiDgs  of  Christ 
to  human  nature. 

.11.  It  makes  the  man,  Christ  Jesus,  very  man,  like 
the  lowest  Unitarians. 

12.  It  has  no  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  but  a 
man,  like  the  lowest  Unitarians. 

13.  It  has  no  sacrifice  but  a  man,  like  the  lowest  Unita- 
rians. 

14.  It  worships  only  part  of  Christ,  and  makes  it 
idolatry  to  w^orship  all  of  Christ. 

15.  It  makes  it  idolatry  to  worship  the  man  Jesus. 

16.  It  makes  it  idolatry  to  worship  the  Lamb  that  was 
slain,  whom  angels  worship. 

17.  It  makes  no  difiereuce  between  truth  and  error, 
but  sanctifies  the  grossest  contradictions. 

18.  It  destroys  the  doctrine  of  a  Son  of  God. 

19.  It  is  repugnant  to  Christianity  in  giving  God  an 
equal. 

20.  Its  names  and  phrases,  by  which  it  worships  God, 
difier  from  those  used  by  angels,  prophets,  the  Son  of 
God,  or  the  apostles:  instance  Trinity,  Triune,  Holy 
Trinity,  Three  One,  Jehovah-Jesus,  God  Man,  second 
person  in  the  Trinity,  Holy  Three,  God  the  Son,  God  the 
Holy  Gliost,  two  Natures,  Human  I^ature  of  Jesus. 

21.  It  makes  two  Jesuses,  one  a  God  who  did  not 
sufier  for  us,  did  not  bleed  for  us,  did  not  pray  for  us, 
was  not  seen,  is  not  our  mediator,  is  not  our  sacrifice, 
did  not  die  for  us,  did  not  redeem  us,  nor  rise  for  us,  nor 
plead  for  us — and  him  they  wwship ;  wdiile  the  other 
Jesus,  that  they  say  is  ve7y  maii^  sufiered  for  us,  bled  for 
us,  bought  us,  prayed  for  us,  was  seen  by  us,  is  our  Me- 
diator, our  sacrifice,  died  for  us,  rose  for  us,  pleads  for 
us,  was  wounded  for  us,  and  redeemed  us — him  they  will 
not  worship,  and  condemn  us  as  idolaters  for  worshiping 
the  Son  of  God. 

Oh,  my  brother,  this  doctrine  of  the  Son  of  God  is  a 
glorious  and  blessed  doctrine.  Do  not  use  your  talents 
and  power  against  it,  for  you  cannot  overthrow  it.    It  is 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  157 

the  rock  upon  which  the  Church  is  founded.  It  stands, 
and  must  for  ever  stand. 

Mr.  Flood's  Tenth  reply : 

I  am  much  pleased  with  the  improvement  in  the  spirit 
manifested  by  my  brother.  No  chastisement  for  the  pre- 
sent is  joyous,  but  rather  grievous  ;  but  afterward  it  may 
yield  positive  fruits  of  righteousness  to  them  that  are 
exercised  thereby.  The  brother  starts  out  by  quoting 
Clarke,  and  says  that  Clarke  quotes  a  heathen  author  to 
prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Clarke,  in  his  Notes 
on  1  John,  shows  how  this  word  was  in  use  among 
some  ancient  heathens  before  the  time  of  Christ.  My 
friend  says  Clarke  was  pressed  to  this  of  necessity. 
Whoever  vs^ill  turn  their  attention  to  the  use  he  makes 
of  it,  will  see  the  justice  my  brother  has  done  the  au- 
thor. He  wishes  to  know,  if  human  nature  is  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  strange  my  brother  will 
not  comprehend  my  explanation  on  this  subject.  I  en- 
deavored, in  a  previous  explanation,  to  show  him  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  God  and  man,  in  one  person,  and  of 
Christ  that  human  nature  was  identified  with  divine  na- 
ture, in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  Then  he  asks  the  ques- 
tion, if  in  worshiping  Jesus  Christ  we  do  not  w^orship  the 
humanity  ?  In  connection  with  this,  he  also  asserts  that 
we  have  no  mediator  between  God  and  man.  Now,  it 
was  for  this  very  purpose  that  he  took  upon  him  human 
nature,  that  he  might  be  a  mediator,  that  he  might  be 
united  with  the  otiended  and  the  ofiending.  That  he 
should  be  united  with  God,  it  was  necessary  he  should 
possess  divinity,  having  all  the  attributes  and  perfections 
of  divine  nature ;  and  hence  he  is  one  with  the  Father, 
in  substance,  power,  glory,  and  eternity  ;  hence  we  wor- 
ship Jesus  Christ,  and  worship  him  as  God ;  we  ap- 
proach him  as  the  medium,  and  worship  him  as  the 
Mediator — "  No  man  cometti  unto  the  Father  but  by 
me,"  and  this,  I  suppose,  in  the  character  of  mediator. 
Whenever  this  reference  is  made,  he  is  spoken  of  in 


158  DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 

reference  to  his  office  as  mediator  in  the  everlasting 
covenant,  and  becomes  a  mediator  amply  suited  to  meet 
all  the  necessities  of  the  case,  both  with  reference  to  the 
claims  of  God  and  the  obligations  of  humanity.  But 
he  states,  on  what  authority  1  should  like  to  know,  that 
I  deny  tlie  Son  of  God  was  eternal.  jSTow,  I  shall  be 
glad  if  my  brother  will  point  out  the  place,  in  the  re- 
porter's notes,  where  I  have  denied  the  eternity  of  the 
Son  of  God  ;  that  the  Son  of  God  is  an  eternal  being  as 
God ;  that  he  must  be  so,  but  is  only  designated  as  the 
Son,  in  connection  with  his  being  begotten  ;  this  is  the 
only  point  of  difference.  I  hold,  with  Watson,  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  eternal  in  his  divine  nature,  but  was 
known  in  his  divine  nature  prior  to  his  being  begotten 
of  the  Father,  as  the  Word,  or  Logos ;  hence  I  do  not 
use  the  phrase,  etei-nal  Son  of  God ;  but  nevertheless,  I 
say  that  he  who  is  the  Son  of  God  is  an  eternal  being. 
Any  casual  observer  will  see  the  point  of  difference: 
Christ,  in  his  divine  nature,  is  eternal ;  he  existed  before 
all  time,  and  prior  to  the  birth  of  any  beings,  angelic  or 
human.  This  is  implied  in  his  language :  "  Before 
Abram  was  I  am.''  He  was  designated  as  the  Word,  or 
Logos,  which  was  with  the  Father,  which  became  Flesh, 
and  is  therefore  properly  designated  the  Son  of  God,  in 
the  sense  in  which  no  angelic  or  human  nature  can  be 
called  Son  of  God.  The  brother  desired  to  have  five 
days'  discussion  on  this  proposition.  I  should  have  been 
satisfied  with  less,  and  had  he  not  repeated  things  of  this 
kind,  he  could  have  delivered  himself  of  more  matter  than 
he  could  in  a  month  to  come,  if  he  acts  upon  the  prin- 
ciple that  seems  to  have  guided  him  hitherto.  And  he 
quotes  again,  that  "  God,  the  mighty  Maker,  died."  I 
hope  he  will  not  think  it  hard  if  I  refer  him  to  the  forty- 
four  stanzas  repeating  the  same  language  in  each.  I 
will  now  reply  to  his  statement,  that  I  have  asserted  that 
God  had  no  body,  and  then  that  he  had ;  that  the  hu- 
manity and  divine  nature,  says  the  Constitution,  w^ere 
never  separated,  and  that  I  say,  they  were., 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


159 


With  regard  to  the  separation  of  the  humanity  and 
Divinity,  the  article  must  be  understood  to  assert,  that 
no  permanent  separation  would  have  taken  place,  and 
appeared  wholly  based  between  the  resurrection  and 
ascension,  which,  if  not  alluded  to  in  the  article,  is  uni- 
versally believed.  It  was  no  permanent  separation  ;  but 
a  very  brief  one,  for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing  the 
work  of  redemption.  As  regards  God  having  a  body, 
he  possesses  no  corporal  body,  as  the  essential  God. 
But  when  he  connected  humanity  with  the  Divine  nature, 
it  was  in  a  mysterious  manner,  that  was  non-essential  to 
his  being  as  God,  but  essential  to  his  efiecting  man's 
redemption.  I  am  well  aware  of  the  meaning  of  this 
war  of  words,  and  can  not  but  regret  its  necessity ;  but 
my  friend  must  not  expect,  by  any  play  of  words,  to  get 
rid  of  the  real  question  at  issue.  He  goes  on  and  quotes 
a  number  of  passages,  to  show  that  Jesus  Christ  could 
not  have  been  one  with  the  Father ;  that  God  could  not 
be  the  sender  and  the  sent,  the  begetter  and  the  begotten ; 
that  he  prays  to  his  Divine  nature ;  that  he  goes  back  to 
himself,  stands  at  his  own  right  hand,  &c.  Now  I  shall 
be  glad  if  my  brother  will  give  us  to  understand  what  he 
means  by  some  of  these  phrases  ;  for  instance,  Jesus  sat 
at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father.  Are  we  to  understand 
that  God  has  a  physical  right  hand,  and  that  he  occupies 
a  place  somewhere  in  the  universe,  as  a  great  God,  and 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  placed  at  the  right  hand  of  the  great 
Sovereign  of  the  universe  ?  This  language,  I  conceive, 
is  employed  in  the  Scriptures,  in  reference  to  the  connec- 
tion subsisting  between  the  Divinity  and  humanity.  I 
can  not  possibly  conceive  an  infinite,  incomprehensible 
Jehovah,  who  exists  from  all  eternity,  absolutely  inde- 
pendent, who  fills  universal  space,  whose  person  is  every- 
where, that  he  can  have  any  required  position,  and  that 
at  his  right  hand,  in  the  sense  my  brother  supposes,  is 
Christ,  as  a  being  of  inferior  and  delegated  authority. 
Now  Stephen  speaks  of  Jesus,  as  beholding  him  in  this 
position  ;  but  until  the  brother  explains  what  he  under- 


160 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


I 


stands  by  this,  I  will  wave  my  answer,  at  least  for  tho 
present.  I  will  give  it  at  its  appropriate  time,  but  I  want 
my  brother  to  be  a  little  definite,  and  state  what  he  thinks 
it  means.  He  states  that  we  do  not  believe  in  the 
equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father — that  Jesus  Christ 
is  one  with  God,  Now  he  must  conceive  that  his  oppo- 
nent, and  Trinitarians  generally,  are  the  most  dishonest 
set  of  men  that  can  possibly  exist,  if  they  preach  these 
articles  of  belief — proclaim  them  broadcast  to  the  world — ■ 
invite  every  quarter  of  the  globe  to  embrace  this  true 
essential  equality  of  the  Father  with  the  Son,  at  the  same 
time  they  do  not  believe  it  themselves.  Now  if  you  can 
reconcile  these  contradictions,  I  leave  you  to  do  it,  my 
brother,  as  a  compliment  to  this  audience,  upon  their 
intelligence.  I  hope  the  audience  will  not  receive  many 
assertions  that  have  been  presented  by  my  opponent.  I 
am  happy  to  be  able  to  compliment  this  audience,  on  the 
patience  and  intelligence  they  have  throughout  mani- 
fested, and  am  quite  willing  to  leave  it  to  their  discrimi- 
nation, as  to  what  is  most  worthy  of  their  belief.  I  came 
here  with  the  full  expectation,  that  a  certain  class  of 
minds  would  be  fixed  beforehand,  in  favor  of  their  belief, 
and  would  not  be  likely  to  be  moved  therefrom ;  nor 
had  I  any  great  hopes  of  making  a  convert  of  my  brother. 
But  at  the  same  time,  I  had  hope  in  the  conviction,  that 
truth  is  mighty  and  will  prevail,  and  that  this  endless 
clashing  of  words  may  find,  at  least,  some  means  of  set- 
tlement and  adjustment,  by  which  religionists  of  all 
parties  may  be  united.  If  I  can  assist  in  the  accomplish- 
ment of  this,  I  shall  have  done  something  for  the  interests 
of  my  fellow-men.  He  triumphantly  asks  me  to  point  out 
the  word  Trinity,  in  the  Bible.  1  stated  the  word  Trinity 
is  not  a  Scriptural  phrase  ;  that  I  had  no  tenacity  for  it, 
simply  as  a  word ;  that  I  do  not  use  it  as  a  name  for 
Jehovah.  We  can  not  name  Jehovah.  There  is  perhaps 
no  word,  that  fully  expresses  all  the  essential  character- 
istics of  the  divine  Being.  But  we  use  the  term  Trinity, 
as  a  convenient  phrase  to  illustrate  the  great  Scripture 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  161 

doctrine,  which  we  find  on  record  in  the  Bible ;  that  in 
the  unity  of  the  Godhead  there  are  three  persons — Father, 
Son,  and  Holj  Ghost — constituting  the  one  living  and 
true  God,  the  God  of  creation,  the  God  of  salvation,  and 
the  God  of  redemption.  Hence,  as  we  have  but  this  one 
living  and  true  God,  we  use  this  term  as  significant  of 
our  understanding  of  it.  He  asserts,  again,  that  his 
opponent  is  renouncing  his  creed.  I  suppose  he  alludes 
to  the  proposition  under  discussion.  I  have  informed 
him,  again  and  again,  that  I  believe  that  the  proposition 
under  discussion,"  presents  the  truth  on  this  particular 
point,  I  have  been  laboring  to  sustain.  When  he  tells 
his  audience  that  his  opponent  sometimes  says  one  thing, 
and  sometimes  another,  I  appeal  to  my  audience,  if  there 
has  not  been  an  honest  desire  manifested  for  the  truth, 
notwithstanding  any  circumstances  that  might  appear. 
He  gives  me  credit  for  wit.  I  am  glad  to  notice  this 
improvement  on  the  spirit  of  his  former  speech.  If  I 
succeed  in  accomplishing  anything,  it  is  not  owing, 
perhaps,  to  any  particular  capacity  that  I  possess,  but 
owing  to  the  readiness  of  the  material ;  he  allows,  how- 
ever, that  if  the  doctrine  I  defend  was  capable  of  being 
sustained,  that  his  brother  is  capable  of  doing  it.  In  a 
former  speech,  he  compared  me  to  an  apprentice  boy ; 
now,  he  fancies  there  is  something  in  me,  and  that 
I  am  capable  of  sustaining  an  argument,  if  it  is  ca- 
pable of  being  sustained.  He  says  we  are  safe,  if  we 
have  the  Son  of  God  dwelling  in  us.  This  is  the  very 
doctrine  we  teach  ;  for  we  assume  that  the  Son  of  God  is 
God,  and  the  Son  of  God  possesses  all  the  essential 
attributes  of  the  Divine  mind,  and  hence,  he  says.  Rev. 
iii,  20,  Behold  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock ;  if  any 
man  hear  my  voice,  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come  into 
him,  and  will  sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me."  Again, 
he  promises  that  he  will  come,  and  bring  his  Father 
with  him,  and  make  his  abode  with  them :  "  He  that 
hath  the  Son  hath  the  Father ;"  this  is  the  point  alluded 
to  in  his  address  to  Philip ;  and  hence  he  promises  to 
14 


162 


DISCUSSION   ON   THE  TRINITY. 


come  in  and  sup  with  the  believers,  and  having  this 
communion  with  Christ,  we  have  fellowship  with  the 
Father,  and  with  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ.  I  assume  the 
essential  presence  of  Jesus  Christ  everywhere.  He 
hath  promised  believers,  that  w^here  two  or  three  are 
gathered  together,  he  will  be  in  the  midst  of  them.  My 
brother  will  have  to  explain,  if  Jesus  Christ  is  not  om- 
nipotent, how  it  is,  if  every  human  being  in  the  universe 
were  to  open  their  hearts,  how  Christ  would  be  able  to 
enter.  It  does  not  say  that  any  man,  in  any  one  place, 
nor  a  thousand  places  ;  but  says  to  any  man,  in  Europe, 
Asia,  Africa,  or  America.  My  brother  assumes  that  he 
may  be  in  many  places,  but  not  in  all.  With  respect  to 
a  personal  Devil,  I  will  not  deny  Satan,  for  his  gratifica- 
tion, for  the  present  time.  I  hold  that  Satan,  or  the  old 
Devil,  goeth  about  like  a  roaring  lion,  seeking  whom  he 
might  devour.  Now  roaring  lions  are  not  found  in  but 
one  place  at  the  same  time ;  but  that  Satan,  and  the 
wicked  spirits  of  wicked  men,  may  be  exerting  an  evil 
influence  in  connection  with  the  chief  evil  spirit,  I  will 
not  question  this  latter  position  ;  but  the  presence  of 
Satan  in  more  places  than  one,  at  the  same  time,  is  a 
strange  theolog}^,  and  I  will  not  give  it  a  place  in  my 
creed.  But  Christ  can  be  in  more  places  than  one,  at  the 
same  time — he  may  pervade  the  universe;  be  in  heaven, 
and  on  every  part  of  the  earth,  at  the  same  time.  The 
Son  of  man  says,  "  he  which  is  in  heaven."  Now,  here 
in  this  allusion,  he  claim.s  for  himself  to  have  presence, 
in  some  sense,  in  heaven,  at  the  same  time  that  he  was 
upon  the  earth ;  therefore  I  assume,  that  wherever  two 
or  more  are  gathered  together,  in  his  name,  he  is  with 
them  to  bless  them.  "  If  any  man  open,  I  will  come  in ;  " 
and  hence,  his  vision  and  knowledge  must  take  cogni- 
zance of  all  things  transpiring  upon  this  earth  ;  he  must 
be  omniscient  as  well  as  omnipresent,  for  his  knowledge 
must  take  cognizance  of  all  his  creatures  ;  hence,  if  two 
or  three  agree  upon  the  same  thing,  or  a  thousand  differ- 
ent things,  all  of  which  may  be  asked  in  his  name,  he  is 


DISCUSSION   ON  THE   TRINITY.  163 


able  to  give  attention  to  the  demands  of  all,  of  high  or 
of  low,  of  rich  or  of  poor,  of  great  and  of  small,  the 
learned  and  the  ignorant,  the  wise  and  the  simple,  and 
all  to  trust  in  him,  as  their  redeeming  God,  may  have 
confidence  in  his  being  able  to  take  cognizance  of  their 
wants,  the  propriety  or  impropriety  of  their  wants,  and 
as  Almighty,  he  is  able  to  supply  them  ;  and  he  assures 
them  that  he  will  do  it.  These  are  a  few  of  the  collat- 
eral evidences,  which  are  presented  in  the  "Word  of  God, 
on  the  essential  perfections  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  God. 

Mr.  Summerbell's  Eleventh  address : 

My  friends,  it  has  been  asked  by  some,  why  it  is  that 
I  am  on  the  affirmative,  of  a  negative  proposition  ?  The 
only  reason  I  can  give  is,  that,  after  my  coming  here,  this 
was  the  only  way  in  which  my  brother  would  agree  to 
discuss  the  subject.  He  now  wants  to  know  what  /  he- 
lieve.  My  faith  is  not  the  subject  in  discussion,  nor  ara- 
1  bound  to  present  my  doctrine.  The  question  is  simply 
whether  the  Methodist  doctrine  is  true.  If  my  brother 
wishes  a  debate  on  our  doctrine,  after  we  close  the  present 
discussion,  I  shall  be  very  willing  to  accommodate  him. 

My  brother  said,  that  1  did  not  quote  Clarke  correctly. 
I  ask  him,  then,  to  read  the  paragraph  himself,  and  show 
wherein  I  was  incorrect.  The  difficulty  of  my  brother's 
worship  is  still  unexplained.  I  wanted  to  know  whether 
he  worships  all  of  his  God,  creature,  and  creator?  body 
and  spirit?  human  and  divine?  or  only  part?  He 
acknowledges  that  his  God  now  has  a  body — the  body 
of  a  very  man — a  creature.  If,  then,  he  worships  all  of 
his  God,  he  worships  a  creature,  according  to  his  own 
theory.  True,  his  creed  says,  that  God  has  no  body,  but 
he  has  given  that  up.  He  says  that  he  worships  Clirist 
as  God,  but  that  does  not  help  the  difficulty,  his  Christ  is 
part  man  and  part  God ;  so  if  he  worships  all  of  his 
Christ  as  God,  then  he  worships  man,  a  creature,  as  God. 
Come,  my  brother,  explain  this  to  us.  I  want  him  to 
tell  us  if  he  rejects  from  his  worship  God's  body,  and 


164 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


that  part  of  his  Christ  that  suffered  for  him,  was  ciTicified 
for  him,  died  for  him,  and  redeemed  him  ?  He  says  that 
Christ,  human  and  divine,  God  and  man,  was  but  one 
person.  If  so,  and  he  worships  all  that  person,  then  he 
worships  a  creature.  But,  the  other  day  he  said  that  the 
person  begotten,  was  not  the  person  that  was  with  God 
in  the  beginning.  He  attempted  to  show  that  he  had  a 
mediator  between  God  and  man ;  but  in  this  he  utterly 
failed.  He  has  a  God-man;  but  can  he  find  a  mediator 
between  ?  Now,  if  God  is  the  mediator,  he  can  not  be 
a  mediator  heticeen  God  and  men — for  he  is  God  him- 
self, one  of  the  parties ;  and  if  he  takes  the  other  horn 
of  the  dilemma  and  says  that  man  is  the  mediator,  that 
will  not  do,  for  man  can  not  be  a  mediator  between  God 
and  man,  since  he  is  man — one  of  the  parties.  It  will  not 
do,  brother ;  he  must  show  us  a  mediator  between  God 
and  man,  or  acknowledge  that  he  has  none.  Let  us 
read  Clarke  again,  Luke  i,  35  : — 

"That  human  nature  should  be  called  the  Son  of  the 
most  high  God.  If  Christ  be  the  Son  of  God,  as  to  his 
divine  nature,  then  he  can  not  be  eternal ;  for  son  im- 
plies a  father,  and  father  implies,  in  reference  to  son,  pre- 
cedency in  time,  if  not  in  nature  too.  The  phrase.  Eter- 
nal Son,  is  a  positive  self-contradiction."  Did  I  not  tell 
you  that  Clarke  made  the  Father  to  be  above  the  Son, 
and  superior  to  him  ?  but  my  brother  denied  it.  Prece- 
dency in  time,  if  not  in  nature,  says  Clarke.  That  the 
divine  nature  was  equal  with  the  Father  will  not  explain 
this;  for  Clarke  says  that  "the  angel  does  not  give  the 
appellation  of  Son  of  God  to  the  divine  nature."  Luke 
i,  35  ;  and  that  he  knows  of  "  no  Scripture,  fairly  inter- 
preted, that  states  the  divine  nature  to  be  begotten  of 
God,  or  to  be  the  Son  of  God."  My  brother  exchanges 
the  Son  of  God,  in  his  creed  and  in  his  doctrine,  for  the 
Logos ;  but  that  will  not  do.  We  want  to  know  if  he 
believes  in  the  Son  of  God  ? 

He  admits  now  that  the  two  natures  were  divided  three 
days  and  three  nights.    Yet  the  creed  says,  never  to  be 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


165 


divided  ;  but  that  is  also  given  up  now.  But  if  the  two 
natures  were  divided  three  days  and  three  nights,  con- 
trary to  his  creed,  how  does  he  know  that  they  never  will 
be  divided  again  ?  The  question  is,  Whether  his  creed 
(or  Constitution  and  Discipline,  and  articles  of  religion,) 
be  true  or  false  ?  It  says  that  God  has  no  body.  My 
brother  gives  up  that  God  now,  has  a  body.  It  says  that 
the  two  natures  of  Christ  were  never  to  be  divided.  My 
brother  now,  gives  up  that  they  were  divided  three  days 
and  three  nights.  Well,  if  God  has  a  body,  as  my 
brother  says,  then  his  creed  is  false.  Again  ;  if  the  two 
natures  were  divided,  as  my  brother  says,  then  his  creed 
(Constitution  and  Discipline)  is  false.  That  they  deny  the 
equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  is  evident,  for  they 
say  that  the  Son  is  very  man — human  nature — that  eter- 
nal Son  is  not  correct.  They  make  the  Son  die  to  recon- 
cile his  Father  to  us.  This  is  not  making  them  equal. 
They  say  that  the  Son  is  a  mediator  between  God  and 
us — not  between  God  and  man,  for  the  Son  is  man,  they 
say.  This,  then,  does  not  make  them  equal.  They 
make  the  Son  a  sacrifice — to  die  for  us — to  pay  the 
debt.  This  does  not  make  them  equal.  Clarke  says, 
that  "  although  Christ  is  of  the  same  essence  of  the 
Father,  yet  he  is  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father,  as 
tlie  splendor  of  the  sun,  though  of  the  same  essence,  is 
distinct  from  the  sun  itself."  Heb.  i,  3.  Now,  if  they 
did  not  believe  that  the  Son  is  inferior  to  the  Father, 
could  they  use  this  comparison  ?  For  the  splendor  of 
the  sun  is  dependent,  for  its  existence,  upon  the  sun  from 
which  it  emanates.  My  brother,  after  asserting  that  two 
infinites  could  not  exist,  or  inhabit  the  same  space,  has 
not  explained  to  us  how  three  infinite  persons  can  exist 
in  the  same  space.  Lot  him  not  Ibrget  this.  Neither 
has  he  told  us  how  two  persons  in  the  Trinity  could  give 
all  their  power  over  to  a  third,  and  not  cease  to  exist ; 
though,  alter  saying  that  if  God  did  give  all  power  in 
heaven  and  eartii  to  Christ,  that  God  must  cease  to  exist; 
he  did  say  that  both  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost  gave 
all  power  to  the  Sou.    Explain  brother !    My  brother 


166 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


threatens  to  "  take  off  his  gloves,"  and  take  hold  of  the 
subject  in  earnest.  He  says  that  he  will  "  open  the  flood- 
gates upon  me."  Well  I  do  sincerely  hope  that  he  will. 
Come  on,  brother,  take  ofi*  your  gloves.  I  only  wish 
that  he  could  have  been  induced  to  have  opened  his 
flood-gates  before.  He  expresses  a  great  deal  of  anxiety 
to  know  what  1  believe.  Yerywell.  I  believe  that  there 
is  one  true  and  living  God,  and  one  Son  of  God,  as  set 
forth  in  the  Bible.  But  my  brother  can  not  see  into  this; 
his  creed  can  not  be  reconciled  to  it,  and  he  must  defend 
his  creed.  But  he  has  already  denied  about  one-half  of 
it,  yet  he  thinks  that  it  must  be  true.  1  hope  that  before 
the  debate  closes  he  will  think  differently. 

He  traces  the  Trinity  back  to  the  fourth  century.  I  want 
him  to  account  for  the  fact  that  there  is  no  Trinity  in  the 
Bible — no  Trinity  in  any  of  the  writings  of  the  early 
fathers — no  Trinity  in  the  Apostle's  creed — no  Trinity  in 
the  Nicene  creed  ?  Why  were  there  no  Trinitarian  his- 
torians until  after  the  fourth  century  ?  Why  was  it  that 
the  barbarous  nations  which  I  have  mentioned,  although 
Christian,  yet  rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity?  How 
was  it  that  the  Roman  soldiers  marched  through  their 
countries  with  fire  and  sword,  subduing  them  to  the  Trin- 
ity ?  These  were  the  means  made  use  of,  save  that  where 
they  invaded  the  Boman  empire,  and  mingling  with  the 
Eoman  population,  finally  imbibed  the  doctrines  taught 
by  the  Eoman  church.  I  want  my  brother  to  account 
for  these  things,  and  not  pass  them  by,  merely  saying 
that  there  is  no  argument  in  them.  If  he  renounces  the 
word  Trinity,  why  does  he  not  put  it  out  of  his  creed  ? 
Why  not  ?  He  says  that  it  is  unessential,  and  admits 
that  it  is  not  found  in  the  Bible  !  Yet  the  unity  of  the 
Godhead,  he  says,  "  consists  of  three  persons."  I  deny 
it.  I  ask  for  the  chapter  and  verse  where  it  is  recorded. 
If  it  is  thus  recorded,  I  must  receive  it.  But  it  is  not. 
I  have  high  Trinitarian  authority  which  says,  that  the 
Trinity  is  not  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity.  If 
it  is  not,  and  is  without  authority,  how  can  my  brother 
receive  it  as  Christian  doctrine  ? 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


167 


I  will  now  read  a  few  sentences,  showing  the  contra- 
dictions in  my  brother's  theory.  According  to  Trinita- 
rianism: 

Jesus  is  very  God,  and  very  man. 
The  invisible  God  ;  but  was  often  seen. 
The  immortal  God ;  but  he  died. 
Omnipotent  God  ;  but  an  angel  strengthened  him. 
Omniscient  God ;  but  knew  not  the  day  or  the  hour. 
Equal  with  God ;  and  is  the  same  God  he  is  equal 
with. 

Is  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  the  God  that  he  is  the  Son  of. 
He  is  equal  with  the  Father,  and  is  the  Father. 
He  is  the  Son ;  but  is  as  eternal  as  his  Father. 
Is  as  great  as  his  Father ;  and  his  Father  is  greater 
than  he. 

Is  the  only  begotten  Son ;  and  is  the  unbegotten  God. 

Is  the  only  true  God  ;  and  is  the  Son  of  the  only  true 
God.  ^ 

Is  the  self-existent  God  ;  and  the  Son  of  the  self-ex- 
istent God. 

Always  had  all  power ;  but  received  all  power  of  his 
Father. 

Has  a  Father ;  and  is  that  God  who  has  no  Father. 

Divinity  and  humanity  united  never  to  be  divided ; 
but  the  divinity  forsook  the  humanity  on  the  cross. 

Cannot  be  divided  ;  but  one  was  dead,  the  other  living. 

He  came  out  from  God  ;  but  is  the  God  he  came  out 
from. 

He  prayed  to  God  ;  but  was  the  God  he  prayed  to. 
He  is  the  God  who  gave  his  Son ;  and  is  the  Son 
given. 

He  said,  Father,  I  thank  thee ;  and  was  tlie  Father. 
He  is  the  only  wise  God ;  and  the  Son  of  the  only 
wise  God. 

He  is  the  mediator  between  God  and  men ;  and  is  the 
God  with  whom  he  pleads. 

He  is  the  God  that  has  no  body;  but  took  again  his 
body. 


168 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


He  is  the  God  that  no  man  hath  seen ;  but  was  often 
seen. 

Is  the  God  that  has  no  parts ;  yet  has  both  body  and 
parts. 

He  is  the  unchangeable  God  ;  but  became  man. 
He  is  self-existent ;  but  has  a  Father. 
He  is  eternal ;  but  was  begotten  before  all  worlds. 
He  is  but  one  person ;  but  is  the  God  that  is  three 
persons. 

God  says,  that  Jesus  is  his  Son  ;  but  he  is  God  him- 
self. 

The  Bible  says,  that  God  is  not  a  man ;  but  he  is  the 
man  Christ  Jesus. 

Brethren,  shall  we  cease  to  be  men,  and  believe  all 
these  contradictions  ? 

He  says  that  he  will  attend  to  my  arguments  at  some 
future  time  ;  why  not  now?  Now  is  the  time,  instead  of 
flying  off*  into  irrelevant  matter,  and  altogether  neglect- 
ing my  principal  arguments,  as  well  as  the  numerous 
passages  of  Scripture,  disproving  the  Trinity.  He  quotes 
that  "The  Devil  goes  about  as  a  roaring  lion,"  &c.,  to 
prove  that  he  cannot  be  present  in  more  than  one  place 
at  a  time.  Very  well !  Let  us  see  how  this  will  work. 
Allowing  eight  liundred  millions  to  be  an  average  num- 
ber of  the  human  family,  and  thirty-three  years  to  be  a  gen- 
eration, and  that  the  adversary  spends  one  hour  only  with 
one  man,  and  in  thirty-three  years  we  will  have  over 
seven  hundred  and  ninety-nine  millions,  whom  he  has 
not  visited ;  and  reckoning  from  the  creation  on  the  same 
calculation,  and  we  find  that  he  could  not  have  been 
present  with  more  than  three  out  of  a  hundred  of  the 
human  family.  But  he  says  there  are  others.  If  there 
were  seventy-eight  thousand  of  these  "  little  old  scratches," 
they  could  not  have  called  on  all  the  human  family,  by 
several  thousand.  Such  is  a  specimen  of  the  effects  of 
my  brother's  defining  spirits.  I  tell  you  it  would  be  a 
great  relief  to  my  brother's  system,  if  he  could  prove 
that  there  is  no  other  adversary  than  such  a  one  as  that. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


169 


Passing  on  now,  I  will  read  Dr.  Clarke,  on  the  only  text 
which  professedly  sustains  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
I  want  to  show  you,  that  they  do  not  believe  that  it  is 
Scripture,  if  Clarke  is  to  be  believed. 

John  V,  7,  "There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  hea- 
ven, the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
these  three  are  one." 

Clarke,  after  writing  several  pages  to  prove  this  text  a 
forgery,  sums  up  as  follows : 

1.  "  One  hundred  and  thirteen  Greek  MSS.  are  extant, 
containing  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  and  the  text  in 
question  is  wanting  in  one  hundred  and  twelve. 

2.  "  All  the  Greek  Fathers  omit  the  verse,  though 
many  of  them  quote  both  the  sixth  and  the  eighth  verse, 
applying  them  to  the  Trinity,  and  divinity  of  Christ,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit :  yea,  and  endeavor  to  prove  the  Trinity 
from  verses  six  and  eight,  without  referring  to  any  such 
verse  as  the  seventh ;  which,  had  it  existed,  would  have 
been  a  more  positive  proof,  and  one  that  could  not  have 
been  overlooked. 

3.  "  The  first  place  where  the  verse  appears  in  Greek, 
is  in  the  translation  of  the  Acts  of  the  council  of  Lateran, 
held,  A.  D.,  1215. 

4.  "  Though  it  is  found  in  many  Latin  copies,  yet  it 
does  not  appear  that  any,  written  previously  to  the  tenth 
century,  contain  it. 

5.  The  Latin  Fathers  do  not  quote  it,  even  where  it 
would  have  greatly  strengthened  their  arguments,  and 
where,  had  it  existed,  it  might  have  been  most  naturally 
expected. 

6.  "  Vigilius,  bishop  of  Topsum,  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  fifth  century,  is  the  first  who  seems  to  have  referred 
expressly  to  the  three  heavenly  witnesses.  But  his  quo- 
tation does  not  agree  with  the  present  text,  either  in  words 
or  in  sense ;  and  beside,  he  is  a  writer  of  very  little  cre- 
dit, nor  does  the  place  alleged,  appear  to  learned  men  to 
be  genuine. 

7.  The  Latin  writers  who  do  refer  to  the  three  heav- 

15 


ITO 


DISCtSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


enly  witnesses,  vary  greatly  in  their  quotations,  &c,  very 
many  omitting  the  clause,  'these  three  are  one,'  &c. 

8.  "  It  is  wanting  in  all  the  ancient  versions,  the  Yul- 
gate  excepted ;  but  the  more  ancient  copies  of  this,  have 
it  not.  (fee. 

9.  ''It  is  wanting  in  the  first  edition  of  Erasmus, 
A.  D.,  1516,  &c. 

10.  "  It  is  wanting  in  the  German  translation  of  Lu- 
ther, and  in  all  the  editions  of  it  published  during  his 
lifetime. 

11.  "  It  is  inserted  in  our  early  English  translations, 
but  with  marks  of  doubtfulness,  as  has  already  been 
shown. 

12.  "In  short,  it  stands  on  no  authority,  sufficient  to 
authenticate  any  part  of  a  revelation,  professing  to  have 
come  from  God."  (fee,  (fee.  (fee. 

Thus,  accordino'  to  their  own  showings,  this  text  is  a 
forgery,  and  was  put  in  to  sustain  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  But  how  can  we  rely  upon  a  doctrine  which  is 
sustained,  only,  by  forged  passages  of  Scripture  ?  Mr. 
Barnes,  the  very  able  Presbyterian  commentator,  also 
rejects  the  above  text. 

My  brother  thinks,  that  when  the  Son  of  man  is  spoken 
of,  it  refers  to  the  humanity ;  but  is  my  brother  prepared  to 
admit  that  the  humanity  was  omnipresent  ?  yet  it  was 
while  on  earth,  that  Jesus  said,  "  Even  the  Son  of  man, 
which  is  in  heaven and  they  think  that  this  proves  om- 
nipresence. The  Christians  believe,  that  the  Son  of  man 
is  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  (Matt,  xvi.) ;  that  the  child 
born,  was  Christ  the  Lord,  and  that  the  second  man  is 
the  Lord  from  heaven.  If  my  brother  could  only  believe 
this,  it  would  be  a  great  improvement  in  his  system  ;  he 
could  find  in  the  Son  of  God,  a  medium  between  God 
and  men,  which  he  can  never  find  in  his  "  very  man  " 
system. 

I  now  design  giving  you  some  account  of  the  rise  of 
the  Trinity,  and  evidence  that  the  early  Christians  were 
not  Trinitarians.    It  is  given  up,  by  the  best  historians 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


171 


and  commentators,  that  the  early  Christians  held  to  the 
subordination  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  to  the  Father : 
that  is.  denied  the  equality.  Xeander  states  that  this  was 
the  doctrine  of  the  anti-!Nicene  church.  See  Vol.  i,  p. 
607  :  Vol.  ii,  pp.  361.  363.  364.  365.  and  424,  where  he 
shows  that  the  Trinity  was  not  equality,  but  a  threefold 
gradation,  and  calls  it  the  subordination  theory.  So  Mr. 
Barnes,  finding  that  the  Xicene  creed  makes  Christ  not  a 
self-existent,  but  a  derived  God,  repudiates  its  doctrine ; 
and  consequently,  rejects  the  Xicene  fathei's  as  not  sound 
Trinitarians.    Hawies,  condemns  Justin  Martyr,  saying, 

An  Arian  might  subscribe  his  coniession.  i.  169  ;  and 
condemns  those  early  Christians  as  Arians.  long  before 
Arius  lived:  see  p.  199;  and  thinks  Justin,  Origen.  Ter- 
tullian.  Pantaneus.  and  many  others,  taught  Arianism  in 
the  second  century  ;  p.  164.  **  Xot  a  sign  of  the  Trinity 
is  found  in  any  of  the  early  fathei-s,  neither  were  the 
dominant  party  Arians — the  Arians  had  but  seventeen 
bishops  at  the  council  of  Nice — but  although  the  Trinity 
does  not  belong  to  the  fundamental  articles  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith ;  yet  it  constituted,  from  the  beginning,  the 
fundamental  consciousness  of  the  Catholic  church." — 
Nean.  i,  572,  573.  ^ 

If  my  brother  can  quote  any  historian,  before  the 
fourth  century,  in  favor  of  any  Trinitarian  creed.  I  want 
him  to  do  it  before  this  congregation.  Why  were  there 
no  Trinitarians,  kings,  bishops,  nobles,  or  priests  I  These 
are  things  which  I  want  my  brother  to  clear  up.  If  the 
early  Church  were  Trinitarian,  history  would  so  record 
it :  while,  if  history  does  not  so  record  it.  he  must  admit 
that  it  was  not  so.  But,  though  the  Trinity  is  of  ancient 
date  among  the  heathen,  as  proved  by  Clarke,  the  word 
was  first  found  among  Christians  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century.  The  Xicene  creed  first  called  Christ  a 
derived  God  in  A.  D.  325.  Tiie  Trinity  received  its 
finishing  touch,  as  its  friends  say,  in  3S1.  Mosh.i,  128. 
The  human  soul  in  Christ  was  first  mentioned  in  the 
third  centuT}'.    And  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghoet 


172 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRIXITT. 


was  settled  A.  D.  653.  Mosh.  i.  ^25.  The  Athanasian 
creed  was  formed  in  the  filth  century  ;  and  the  doctrine 
of  two  natures  was  not  settled  till  6 SO.  Gib.  iii,  445 
and  iv,  422.  It  is  clear  that  the  Greek  father  Origan 
was  not  a  Trinitarian,  for  when  accused  of  having  a  big 
God  and  a  little  one,  he  replied :  He  who  is  God  of 
himself  is  The  God — for  which  reason  Jesus  calls  him, 
John  xvii.  3.  *  The  only  true  God.' In  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, orthodox  historians  state  that  there  was  not  a  Trini- 
tarian bishop  of  any  note,  except  Athanasius.  so  that  it 
was  said.  '*Athanasius  against  all  the  world,  and  all  the 
world  against  Athanasius.**  and  he  was  an  excommuni- 
cated bishop.  The  whole  world  during  that  period  is 
called  Arian.  Such  is  the  testimony  of  Hawies.  Xean- 
der.  and  numbers  of  the  best  Trinijiaiian  authors.  Xean- 
der  admits  that  our  views  were  most  populai*  do^vn  to  the 
firth  centuiy.  and  that  they  were  upheld  by  the  majority 
until  the  establishment  of  Popery.  These  are  facts  to 
be  remembered.  All  the  early  councils  were  against 
the  Trinity.  In  the  fourth  centui-y,  there  were  forty-five 
councils  held,  of  which  all  but  thirteen  opposed  the 
Trinity.  The  largest  councils  ever  held  in  ancient  times 
opposed  it.  ^ 

"Wadington  says,  that  they  believed  the  Son  to  be  sub- 
ordinate, "but  not  created:  pp.  115-117.  When  Theo- 
dosius,  the  tvrant.  was  baptized  in  the  Ti-iuitarian  faith, 
though  the  iii-st  emi>eror  baptized  in  that  faith,  he  was 
the  tenth  Christian  emperor ;  and  when  he  set  about 
establishing  the  Trinity,  one  hundred  congregations  were 
ex[jelled  from  their  churches  in  Constantinople  by  the 
soldiers,  in  one  day,  to  establish  that  creed.  See  Gib- 
bon iii,  75.  At  this  time,  every  other  government  in 
the  world  was  opposed  to  it.  Clovis,  of  Prance,  in  the 
sixth  century,  was  called  the  eldest  son  of  the  Church, 
because  the  first  king  to  embrace  that  doctrine,  thoagh 
there  had  been  Christian  kings  from  the  year  ISO. 

Those  barbarous  nations,  so  called,  which  included  all 
nations  outside  of  the  Koman  Empire,  the  English, 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  IfB 

Germans,  and  all,  rejected  the  Trinity ;  yet  they  were 
Christian,  had  the  Bible  translated  into  their  own  lan- 
guage, and  were  renowned  for  their  knowledge  of  the 
IScriptures,  and  urged  the  establishment  of  Bible  schools 
among  the  Romans.  Neander  ii,  150.  When  the  Athana- 
sian  creed  was  drawn  up,  it  was  in  a  dark  and  cruel  age, 
and  it  begins  with  cursing  and  ends  with  cursing.  The 
conversion  of  the  nations  to  the  Trinity,  is  called  in  the 
Book  of  Revelations,  "giving  their  power  to  the  Beast." 
The  Bible  is  against  the  Trinit}^  for  there  is  in  it  only 
one  passage  for  it,  and  they  acknowledge  (pious  souls) 
that  they  forged  it.  The  early  fathers  are  considered  he- 
retical, as  I  have  shown.  Millions  have  been  put  to 
death  to  establish  it,  or  for  denying  it.  Jerome  acknow- 
ledges that,  in  the  fourth  century,  they  had  but  one 
bishop.  Now,  I  refer  my  brother  to  Mosheim,  Neander, 
and  other  Trinitarian  authors ;  and  I  want  him  to  ex- 
plain these  objections  to  his  system  ;  How  is  it  that  the 
two  oldest  ecclesiastical  historians  are  called  Arian  and 
Unitarian  ?  Where  are  the  early  Trinitarian  historians  ? 
I  want  him  to  account  for  the  fact,  that  the  lirst  Trinita- 
rian creeds  arose  so  long  after  the  Apostles'  creed.  I 
want  him  to  tell  us,  why  all  the  nations  which  embraced 
Christianity  before  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  rejected 
the  Trinity  ?  Why  was  it  that  these  nations  had  to  be 
converted  to  the  Trinity,  by  Roman  soldiers  marching 
through  their  coasts  with  fire  and  sword  ?  If  he  re- 
nounces the  word  Trinity,  he  should  take  it  out  of  his 
creed.  If  it  is  non-essential,  why  is  it  there  ?  I  want 
him  to  account  for  these  things,  and  not  pass  them  by, 
by  saying  that  there  is  no  argument  in  them. 

Mr.  Flood's  Eleventh  reply : 

I  shall  commence  my  reply,  by  noticing  two  passages 
of  Scripture  given  to  me  by  my  brother,  which  I  did  not 
notice  this  morning.  John  vi,  38.  "  For  I  came  down 
from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  but  the  will  of 
him  that  sent  me."    I  understand  this  to  be  strictly  in 


1T4 


DISCUSSIOX  ox  THE  TRINITY. 


accordance  with  the  language  of  Christ,  in  the  garden — 
"  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cnp  pass  from  me." 
Whatever  he  had  to  endure,  ^vhatever  he  had  to  sufler, 
in  order  to  accomplish  his  great  work,  I  understand  he 
came  to  submit  to.  however  revolting  it  was  to  the  feeble- 
ness of  human  nature.  And  then,  in  the  most  exti-eme 
case,  with  regard  to  the  work  he  came  to  do,  he  says : 
'*  I  came  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me  showing 
that  the  human  nature  was  subordinate  to  the  divine. 
John  xvii,  3.  ^'Aud  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might 
know  thee,  the  only  ti-ue  God.  and  Jesus  Christ  whom 
thou  hast  sent."  1  have  repeatedly  asserted  here,  that 
there  is  but  one  living  and  true  God ;  and  my  brother 
would  have  me  prove  a  proposition  which  he  himself  has 
furnished  a  thousand  passages  to  prove — that  God  is 
one  ;  and  this  language  is  employed  to  express  this  great 
truth  of  the  oneness  of  God ;  and  yet  there  is  nothing 
contained  in  this  passage  which,  in  the  slightest  degree, 
disproves  that  in  this  one  God  there  ai-e  not  three  dis- 
tinct persons  composing  this  one  living  and  true  God. 
I  now  design,  in  the  next  place,  to  respond  to  my  bro- 
ther's quotation,  from  which  he  has  assumed  that  it  is 
the  united  testimony  of  the  fathers,  that  Socinianism, 
whether  called  Arianism  or  not,  was  received  by  the 
Chmx'h.  I  will  give  you  a  few  quotations  from  the 
fathers,  to  show  you  what  were  the, sentiments  of  the 
Church  before  the  introduction  of  Arianism  in  the  fourth 
century. 

I  quote  first  from  Ignatius^  who  wrote  at  latest  about 
the  year  107.  Gregory's  Evidences,  page  336.  ''Be 
not  led  aside  by  strange  doctrines,  nor  by  antiquated 
tales,  which  are  unprofitable  ;  lor  if  we  yet  live  accord- 
ing to  Judaism,  it  is  equivalent  to  declaring  that  we 
have  not  accepted  grace,  for  the  most  holy  prophets 
lived  according  to  Christ  Jesus.  And  for  that  cause 
were  they  persecuted,  being  inspired  by  the  gTace  of 
Christ,  that  the  unbelievers  might  be  convinced  that 
there  is  one  God,  who  hath  manifested  himself  by  his 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


175 


son  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  his  eternal  Word."  This  looks 
very  much  like  that  the  primitive  Church  equalized 
Jesus  Christ,  in  his  divine  nature,  with  the  Father. 

Justin  Martyr  has  the  following  passage  pref'eiTed  by 
Dr.  Grabe.  When  man's  nature  had  contracted  cor- 
ruption, it  was  necessary  that  lie  who  would  save  it, 
should  do  away  the  principle  of  corruption.  But  this 
could  not  be  done,  without  uniting  essential  life  with  the 
nature  so  corrupted,  to  do  awa}^  the  corruption,  and  ever 
after  to  immortalize  the  corrupt  nature.  Wherefore  it 
was  meet  that  the  Wo7'd  shmdd  become  incarnate^  to 
deliver  us  from  the  death  of  natural  corruption." 

Tertullian  understood  the  phrase.  Son  of  God^  as  ap- 
plied to  Christ,  to  mean  the  same  as  God  of  God ;  as  is 
obvious  from  many  parts  of  his  writings.  There  is  still 
extant  a  creed  of  his,  which  runs  thus:  "We  believe  in 
one  God  ;"  but  under  this  dispensation,  which  we  call 
the  economy,  that  the  one  God  liath  a  Son^  xoliich  is  Jiis 
Word,  who  proceeded  from  him,  and  by  whom  all  things 
were  made  ;  he  was  sent  from  the  Father  to  the  Virgin, 
and  was  born  of  her  both  God  and  man — Son  of  man, 
and  Son  of  God.  Who  afterward,  according  to  his  pro- 
mise, sent  from  the  Father  the  Holy  Ghost  —  the  com- 
forter, the  sanctifier  of  the  faith  of  those  who  believe  in 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  the  rule 
which  has  co?7ie  down  to  us  from  the  heginniiig  of  the 
Gospel.  And  again,  what  is  it  that  the  Gospel  has 
done  ?  What  is  the  substance  of  the  New  Testament, 
extending  the  law  and  the  prophets  as  far  as  John;  if, 
from  thence  forward,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  three 
persons,  are  not  believed  to  make  one  God  ?  Origen^ 
also,  in  his  writings  against  Celsus,  furnishes  many  as- 
sertions, which  are  unequivocal  and  decisiv^e.  Thus  he 
affirms  first,  that  Christ  was  the  uncreated  Son  of  God  ; 
secondly,  that  the  Maker  of  the  world  is  to  be  wor- 
shiped ;  thirdly,  that  Christ  is  the  maker  of  the  world.  He 
maintains  a  precise  distinction  between  creatures  and 
their  creator  ;  and  he  brings  them  together  into  compa- 


176 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRIXITT. 


risen  as  to  the  respect  that  is  clue  to  them.  The  term 
Trinity  does  not  occur  in  this  author  ;  but  all  that  is  es- 
sential to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is  most  clearly  stated. 
"  This  is  the  mle  which  has  come  down  to  us." — Gre- 
gory's Evidences,  p.  338,  &c.  We  now  quote  page  340. 
JSfovoAian  expresses  himself  as  follows :  "  If  no  one 
can  be  saved  by  God  the  Father,  who  does  not  confess 
that  Christ  is  God,  in  whom  and  by  whom  the  Father 
promises  to  give  salvation.  Wherefore  whosoever  ac- 
knowledges him  to  be  God,  is  in  the  way  to  be  saved  by 
Christ,  who  is  God ;  and  whosoever  does  not  acknow- 
ledge him  to  be  God,  forfeits  salvation,  because  he  can 
not  otherwise  have  it^  tlian  in  Christ  as  GodP 

Dionysius,  bishop  of  Rome,  after  censuring  I^arcissus' 
tritheistic  doctrine  as  diabolical,  says :  "  iS;"or  are  they 
less  to  blame  who  think  the  Son  a  creature,  and  who 
suppose  the  Lord  to  have  come  into  being,  as  if  he  were 
one  of  the  things  that  were  really  made."  His  cotempo- 
rary,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  (both  flourished  about  A. 
D.  159.)  expressed  himself  thus  :  "  The  Father  being 
eternal,  the  Son  must  be  eternal  too.  Light  of  Light. 
The  names  mentioned  by  me  are  undivided,  and  inse- 
parable ;  when  I  named  the  Father  before  I  mentioned 
the  Son,  I  signified  the  Son  in  the  Father.  If  any  of  my 
false  accusers  suspect  that  because  I  called  God  creator 
and  former  of  all  things,  I  made  him  creator  of  Christ, 
let  him  consider  that  1  before  styled  him  Father,  and  so 
the  Son  was  included  in  hirnp  The  case  of  this  Dio- 
nysius of  Alexandria,  evinces  very  plainly  of  what  great 
moment  the  belief  of  Christ's  divinity  was  reckoned  in 
the  third  century.  In  controversy  with  the  Sabellians, 
he  expressed  himself  rather  unwarily,  and  hence  became 
suspected  of  leaning  too  far  toward  the  opposite  extreme, 
and  of  holding  inadequate  notions  of  the  Deity  of 
Christ. 

From  these  quotations,  all  of  which  relate  to  the  ear- 
liest authors,  1  do  not  question  that  heresies  existed 
among  the  pagans.    My  brother  says  when  Constantine 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


177 


attempted  to  introduce  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  many 
suffered  death,  rather  than  embrace  it.  These  were  the 
devotees  of  a  false  religion.  And  on  the  other  hand,  he 
supposes  that  because  idolatrous  nations  resisted  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  therefore,  the  Trinity  must  be  false  ! 
Is  not  this  a  most  beautiful  argument?  This  brother 
thought  the  discussion  on  this  subject  must  continue  for 
five  or  six  days.  I  thought  I  could  empty  my  barrel  in 
three  days,  and  it  would  have  been  vrey  desirable,  at  this 
sickly  season  of  the  year,  to  have  done  so ;  but  I  con- 
sented to  follow  in  the  train  of  this  great  luminary  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  and  have  acceded  to  his  proposition. 

My  brother  refers  to  Clarke,  and  says  I  intimated  that 
he  did  not  quote  the  doctor  correctly.  My  intimation 
was,  that  he  did  great  injustice  to  the  author.  My  ex- 
ception was  not  taken  to  the  passage  itself;  but  it  was  to 
the  use  which  was  sought  to  be  made  of  it.  My  brother 
insisted  that  the  doctor  was  pressed  for  support  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  was  compelled  to  go  to  hea- 
then authors  for  conlirmation.  If  he  desires  that  this 
debate  should  go  to  the  world  in  book  form,  I  have 
nothing  to  hazard  in  my  own  mind  against  it ;  but  I  do 
hope  that  my  brother  will  relieve  me  from  appearing  in 
the  position  that  his  opponent  had  yielded  a  single  point. 
I  want  the  record  to  be  made — to  stand  out  in  bold  relief^ — 
that  no  one  position  of  mine  has,  in  the  slightest  degree, 
been  negatived  during  this  discussion,  nor  at  any  time 
been  given  up,  nor  apologized  for.  I  have  no  apology  to 
make  for  any  position  ;  if  the  argument  sustain  it,  I  shall 
remain  content,  and  I  am  certain  that  those  w^ho  sympa- 
thize with  my  views  will  also.  My  brother  asserts  that  we 
are  baptizing  in  the  name  of  the  Word,  or  Logos,  and  not  in 
the  Word,  or  Son.  Christ  is  properly  known  as  begotten 
of  the  Father,  under  the  name  of  the  Son.  There  is  but 
one  person — the  divine  and  the  human  natures  united 
in  Jesus  Christ ;  hence,  it  is  very  proper  that  we  should 
not  baptize  in  the  name  of  any  other,  than  in  the  name 
of  the  Son.    Baptism,  by  it,  is  a  Christian  institution  ; 


178 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


and  it  is  proper  that  those  introduced  into  the  church  of 
the  living  God,  should  receive  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  And 
when  they  hear  that  solemn  language  announced,  the 
very  idea  of  the  equality  of  the  persons  in  whose  name 
they  are  baptized,  is  impressed  upon  the  mind.  "  I 
baptize  thee,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  But  my  opponent  says,  that  I  have 
given  up  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  creed,  or  consti- 
tution. It  is  an  article  expressive  of  the  general  view ; 
it  does  not  say  we  believe  so  much,  and  no  more,  for  we 
refer  to  the  Word  of  God,  as  the  only  infallible  autho- 
rity. It  is  an  honest  expose  of  the  generally  received 
view  of  the  church.  Every  church  has  its  vie^ys  ;  and 
my  brother  will  find  them  strung  up  in  a  long  book. 
He  says  that  I  admit  God  has  a  physical  body ;  I  have 
stated  from  the  first  that  Jesus  Christ,  that  the  Word,  or 
Logos,  had  taken  upon  himself  a  human  body,  and  that 
human  body  never  was  to  be  permanently  separated,  but 
to  remain  undivided  to  all  eternity :  this  position  was 
defined  and  explained  this  morning.  My  brother  then 
refers  to  my  remark  of  taking  ofi"  my  gloves.  I  intimated 
that  I  wanted  my  brother  to  be  close  to  me,  so  that  I 
might  finger  him,  (metaphysically,)  and  that  he  might 
feel  me.  As  to  lifting  thejlood-gatas^  he  had  better  not 
be  too  critical ;  the  summer-bell  would  not  jingle  so  plea- 
santly, if  submerged.  He  refers  again  to  what  he  sup- 
poses an  orthodox  admission ;  in  speaking  of  the  lesser 
spirits,  he  calls  them  "little  rascals whether  it  is  a 
rich  selection  of  language,  I  leave  you  to  judge.  Then 
he  has  been  pleased  to  ascertain  what  number  there  may 
be  afloat  and  abroad  !  Surely,  sir,  you  will  grow  inter- 
esting in  all  these  speeches  ;  you  become  more  and  more 
fruitful  in  4;his  style  !  I  merely  assume  that  it  was  not 
found  in  my  creed,  that  Satan  was  an  omnipresent  being. 
I  believe  he  is  a  very  vicious  devil ;  a  very  wicked 
devil ;  and  in  some  respects,  a  very  foolish  devil ;  and 
as  to  his  being  present  in  more  than  one  place  at  a  time, 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


179 


I  leave  to  my  brother,  who  seems  to  think  it  may  be  so.  I 
agree  with  Pope,  "  Wlien  men,"  &c. 

Clarke  rejected  John  v,  7.  That  it  was  only  in  one  out 
of  one  hundred  and  thirteen  translations.  It  is  supposed 
by  the  author,  that  it  might  have  been  introduced  by 
some  of  the  councils.  We  have  no  evidence  as  to  how 
it  was  introduced.  I  have  not  quoted  it  in  this  discus- 
sion, merely  to  give  my  brother  no  ground  of  quibble  ; 
I  have  no  evidence  that  it  is  not  true,  but  I  avoided  any 
possible  cause  of  collision,  because  I  discover  a  tendency 
to  make  great  matters  of  questions  of  this  kind.  He 
refers  to  tiie  fact,  that  millions  have  sufiered  martyrdom 
for  rejecting  this  doctrine — denying  the  Trinity.  I  sup- 
pose my  brother  is  aware,  that  millions  w^ho  have  also 
suffered  martyrdom,  have  believed  the  contrary.  Among 
those  that  suffered  persecution  under  Nero,  many  were 
Trinitarians,  and  embraced  the  doctrine  of  the  sove- 
reignty of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  essential  Deity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  eVidence  of  the  truth  of  this  doctrine, 
is  not  so  full  in  the  Old  Testament  scripture,  but  it  is 
very  clear  from  the  New ;  as  we  read  in  John  i,  "  In 
the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with 
God,  and  the  Word  was  God."  This  is  the  Word  that 
became  Mediator,  by  taking  upon  himself  flesh  and 
dwelling  among  us.  I  shall  now  proceed  to  state,  that 
my  brother  has  been  giving  himself  a  great  deal  of  con- 
cern about  my  not  defending  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  he  does  not  believe  in 
the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  otherwise,  he  would  not 
require  me  to  defend  it.  It  seems  passing  strange  to  my 
mind,  that  he  should  have  forgotten  that  he,  and  not  I,  is 
in  the  affirmative  on  this  question.  If  he  should  labor  to 
make  it  appear  that,  according  to  the  teaching  of  our 
book,  this  doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  I 
would  certainly  have  tried  to  be  with  him  on  the  subject. 
I  remark  that  works  are  attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  conld  be  performed  by  God  only.    Gen.  i,  2. 

And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the 


180  DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 

waters."  This  has  respect  to  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  in 
connection  with  the  creation.  In  Mat.  xxviii,  19.  we 
have  the  testimony  first  of  the  personality  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Sou,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Now,  if  this  language  gives  a  person- 
ality to  the  Father,  it  also  gives  the  same  to  the  Son ; 
and  if  a  personality  to  the  Son,  it  also  gives  a  personality 
to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Luke  iii,  22.  ''And  the  Holy  Ghost 
descended  in  a  bodily  shape  like  a  dove,  uj^on  him,  and 
a  voice  came  from  heaven,  which  said.  Thou  art  my 
beloved  Son,  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased.''  This  relates  to 
the  baptism  of  Christ  by  John,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
here  personified.  All  the  three  persons  are  interested  in 
this  transaction  ;  Christ  the  Mediator,  is  alx)ut  to  receive 
the  rite  of  baptism  at  the  hand  of  John,  and  the  Father 
is  represented  as  expressing  himself  from  heaven,  while 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  in  the  form  of  a  dove.  A  voice  is 
heard,  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased."  Here,  then,  is  evidence  clear  of  the  person- 
ality of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  the  eflect  of  the  office  of 
the  Spirit,  that  he  should  be  separate  and  distinct,  in  the 
transaction,  from  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  and  it  being 
distinct,  was  noticed  in  the  bodily  shape  of  a  dove.  It 
could  have  as  well  assumed  any  other  appearance,  but  it 
was  such  as  Divine  Wisdom  thought  proper  to  make. 

Mr.  Summerbell's  Twelfth  address : 

He  says  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  i.  e.,  "  God  the  Spirit," 
might  as  well  have  appeared  in  any  other  shape,  as  that 
of  a  dove  ;  but  I  answer,  that  it  is  as  hard  to  believe  that 
God  was  ever  seen  in  a  bodily  shape  like  a  dove,  as  any 
other  shape,  so  long  as  we  believe  Jesus,  that  no  man  hath 
seen  God  at  any  time. 

Had  he  not  better  say,  that  it  was  a  manifestation  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  i.  e.,  of  the  Spiritual  influence  ?  The 
other  day,  he  introduced  it  as  a  pendulum  suspended  from 
the  throne  of  God,  and  swinging  through  heaven,  earth, 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


181 


and  hell.  I  do  not  see  what  my  brother  gains  by  making 
the  Spirit  of  God  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father,  and 
the  Son — even  the  supreme  God,  and  then  "  swinging  it 
from  beneath  the  throne  !  " 

He  thinks  that  Mat.  xxviii,  19,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  proves  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For, 
says  he,  the  Father  is  a  person,  and  the  Son  is  a  person, 
and  so  the  Holy  Ghost  must  be  a  person  ;  but  we  might 
just  as  w^ell  say  fire  must  be  a  person,  for  in  Mat.  iii,  11, 
it  says,  "  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
(with)  fire."  For  if  the  Spirit  is  a  person,  because 
joined  with  the  Father  and  Son  in  the  one  text,  fire  must 
be,  because  joined  with  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  other. 
But  it  will  not  do  to  manufacture  a  Trinity  in  this  way. 
If  it  is  not  a  Bible  doctrine,  better  put  it  away  ;  and  that 
it  is  not,  is  admitted  by  the  most  eminent  authority 
among  Trinitarian  authors,  which  says  that  it  is  not  a 
fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity. 

My  brother  thinks  that  Gen.  i,  3,  proves  the  person- 
ality of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  generality  of  Trinitarian 
authors  think  diiferently,  how^ever.  The  Bible  says  that 
it  was  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  but  God  is  not  the  Spirit  of 
God,  and  I  must  believe  the  Word  of  God.  Here  my 
brother  became  quite  merry — let  that  pass.  But  again, 
he  seemed  grieved  at  my  calling  the  agents  of  the  de- 
stroyer of  souls,  little  rascals,  and  thinks  that  I  am  very 
hard-hearted.  But  I  think  that  my  heart  is  just  as  soft 
and  gentle  as  my  brother's,  and  I  also  think,  that  parents 
generally,  would  just  as  soon  have  me  use  the  word 
rascals,  before  their  children,  as  Devils.  But  he  thinks 
that  more  is  laid  to  the  enemy  of  souls,  than  he  is  guilty 
of.  I  admit  it,  especially,  if  he  is  in  but  one  place  at 
a  time.  But  that  does  not  prove  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity. 

Then  he  threatened  to  take  ofi'  his  gloves  !  Do,  my 
brother,  and  take  hold  of  the  subject  in  earnest.  Next 
he  threatens  to  open  the  flood-gates  upon  me,  and  here 


182 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


he  becomes  decidedly  fuDny.  He  thinks  that  the 
Summerbell  would  not  jingle  under  water.  Why,  then, 
does  he  not  put  it  under  the  water,  and  try  it  ?  Why 
does  he  not  bring  on  the  flood,  and  put  a  stop  to  the 
jingling  ?  I  am  sure  that  this  would  please  him  very 
much.  Come,  brother,  take  ofl"  your  gloves,  and  let 
down  the  flood.  Don't  keep  telling  us  what  you  will  do, 
but  do  it.  He  intimates  that  they  do  not  use  the  word 
Logos  in  the  baptism  formula,  because  it  is  a  Christian 
institution  !    Strange  idea  I ! 

I  come  now  to  notice  his  quotations  from  the  fathere, 
with  which  a  friend  down  helov:  there^  keeps  him  sup- 
plied. But  still  he  goes  to  his  own  side  for  authority, 
and  quotes  from  Gregory's  sectarian  work  on  the  Trin- 
ity ;  thus  he  constantly  quotes  ex  parte  testimony.  Well, 
what  do  his  fathers  say  i  The  first  he  cjuotes,  says  that 
Christ  was  the  eternal  Word,  just  the  Christian  doctrine; 
but  says  not  one  word  about  a  Trinity.  You  should  have 
found  Trinity  there,  my  brother.  Xext  he  quotes  what 
Justin  Martyr  says,  of  the  greatness  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  We  contend  for  that  greatness,  but  there  is  no 
Trinity  in  that.  But  Justin  says,  farther,  that  "Christ 
is  diflerent  from  the  God  who  made  all  things  by  him, 
numerically  diflerent,  but  the  same  in  will."  Those 
fathers  held,  in  the  main,  precisely  the  same  views  of 
Christ  that  we  do  ;  and  not  one  true  Trinitarian  can  he 
find  among  them  all.  He  finds  some  comfort  in  Tertul- 
lian,  because  TertuUian  says  "  God  of  God."  But  my 
brother  won't  admit  that,  for  it  makes  one  God  too 
many  ;  it  makes  two  Gods,  and  yet  proves  no  Trinity. 
They  need  three  eternal  persons  ;  not  two  Gods. 

Tertullian  says,  "  God  was  not  always  a  Father  or  a 
Judge,  since  he  could  not  be  a  father  before  he  had  a  Son, 
nor  a  judge  before  sin."  Tertullian's  faith  will  not  do. 
Hawies,  my  brother's  own  authority,  gives  up  Tertullian 
altogether,  with  Justin  Martyr,  Origen,  and  others. 
Thus  my  brother  gets  along  poorly  in  quoting  them  as 
Ti'initarian. 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIIHTT. 


188 


He  next  quotes  Novatian  as  saying  that  God  does  not 
save  any  one,  &c.  Well,  now,  suppose  that  I  admitted 
that  Gocl  does  not  save  any  one,  my  brother  would  not. 
God  does  save  ns  by  his  Son.  I  dispute  that  authority, 
although  if  I  acknowledged  it,  it  would  prove  of  no  avail 
to  my  brother.  But  there  is  no  Trinity  in  that.  Nova- 
tian's  words  are,  "  God  the  Father  is  alone  without  ori- 
gin ;  when  he  himself  pleased,  the  Word  was  born." 
The  tmth  is,  the  ancient  fathers  did  not  hold  to  the  Trin- 
ity, and  my  brother  has  been  able  to  find  no  Trinity  in 
them. 

He  comments  on  my  saying  that  the  barbarous  nations 
objected  to  the  Trinity,  and  makes  this  an  ofiset  to  finding 
the  Trinity  among  the  heathen,  previous  to  its  existence 
in  the  church.  But  my  brother  is  mistaken  about  the 
meaning  of  the  word  barbarous  here.  The  Greeks  and 
Ilomans  called  all  barbarous  who  did  not  speak  their 
language.  These  were,  many  of  them,  German  nations 
and  Christians,  to  say  the  least,  no  more  barbarous  than 
the  Romans.  Ulphilus,  the  Goth,  translated  the  Bible 
into  their  language ;  they  had  Bible  schools,  and  Jerome 
was  surprised  at  their  proficiency  in  quoting  the  original 
Hebrew.  They  held  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Father,  but 
denied  that  the  Son  was  a  creature.  (See  Wad.  117, 165.) 
My  brother  made  quite  an  argument  here,  excusing  their 
going  to  the  Chinese  for  the  Trinity,  by  my  saying  that 
those  barbarous  nations  rejected  the  Trinity  ;  but  I  leave 
the  audience  to  judge  between  us.  He  quotes  John  vi, 
38,  "  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will 
but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me."  My  brother  wrestled 
with  this  text,  but  he  failed  to  throw  it.  It  has  stood, 
and  will  stand  for  ever.  This  text  teaches  the  subordina- 
tion of  the  '-divine  nature,"  for  his  "human  nature"  had 
not  been  in  heaven.  Who  was  it  that  came  down  from 
heaven,  not  to  do  his  own  will  ?  Who  sent  him  ?  Jesus 
says,  that  he  came  out  from  the  Father — he  came  out 
from  God — he  was  rich,  and  for  our  sakes  became  poor. 
Who  was  it,  God  or  man  ?  humanity  or  divinity  ?  On 


184 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


John  xvii,  3,  "  This  is  life  eternal,  that  thev  might  know 
thee  the  only  tvuv.  GoclJ- — he  says,  there  is  nothing  in  it. 
Does  the  personal  pronoun  THEE  mean  three  persons  or 
one  ?  It  says  that  this  THEE  is  the  only  true  God.  That 
is,  only  one  person  is  God.  I  do  insist  on  my  brother's 
explaining  these  texts.  Let  him  tell  us  how  it  is  that  his 
creed  is  not  named  in  the  Bible — that  the  Trinity  is 
never  named  ?  How  it  is  that  what  we  believe  is  stated 
so  plain  and  so  often,  and  yet  we  are  wrong  ?  I  will 
now  direct  your  attention  to  further  authorities  on  the 
fathers.  I  hold  in  my  hand  Hawies.  He  calls  Origeu 
the  prolific  father  of  heresy,  and  ranks  him  with  Euse- 
bius  as  an  Arian  ;  and  says  that  Dr.  Clarke  is  as  much 
a  blasphemer  as  Socinus.    Hawies,  Yol.  i,  253. 

The  doctrine  that  Christ  had  a  human  soul,  was  not 
held  by  the  j^rimitive  church.  They  held  that  the  Logos 
that  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  was  the  soul  of  the 
body.  Xeander  i,  il35,  says,  that TertuUian  was  the  first 
to  express  distinctly  and  clearly  the  doctrine  that  Christ 
possessed  a  purely  human  soul,"  and  that  this  doctrine 
grew  up  in  opposition  to  Docetism.  P.  634,  and  Vol.  i, 
593,  say,  that  the  synod  convened  against  Beryll,  set- 
tled the  doctrine  concerning  a  human  soul  in  Christ." 
The  anti-Xicene  church  held  that  the  Son  of  God  was  of 
the  same  essence  as  the  Father,  and  distinguished  be- 
tween the  Son  of  God  and  all  created  beings,  (Xeander 
ii,  380,)  but  yet  that  he  was  subordinate  to  the  Father. 
Origen  says,  "  As  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
are  incomparably  exalted  above  all  other  existences,  so 
high,  and  even  higher,  is  the  Father  exalted  above  them." 
Nean.  ii,  590.  I  do  not  quote  Origen,  because  I  believe 
all  that  he  says,  but  because  my  brother  quoted  him  as  a 
Trinitarian.  "The  subordination  of  Christ  to  the  Father 
is  acknowledged  by  Xeander,  on  pages  364,  365  ;  and  in 
Yol.  i,  605,  607,  &c.,  to  have  been  the  primitive  faith. 

1  have  already  read  to  you  that  those  who  held  the 
Christian  views,  at  the  Nicene  council,  were  the  more 
"  numerous  and  dominant  party,"  called  the  "  Old  Church 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


185 


Party,-'  which  says  Neander,  held  to  the  older  system  of 
subordination  (ii,*^ 424),  and  were  called  "peace-makers," 
who,  though  the  majority  were  yet  called  the  *'  Authors 
of  Peace,"  wlio  wished  to  settle  the  divinity  of  Christ  in 
Scripture  phraseology,  (p.  374)  and  adhered  tenaciously 
to  simple  Bible  doctrine — teaching  nothing  which  they 
could  not  prove  with  the  exactness  of  verbal  testimony 
from  the  Bible  (376),  and  how  these  were  put. down  by 
the  emperor.  I  will  now  turn  again  to  a  classification 
of  the  fathers,  to  sec  where  they  belong.  Hawies  says, 
i,  164,  "Justin  (Martyr),  Origen,  Tertullian,  Pantaneus, 
and  MANY  others,  zealous  indeed," — "  ready  to  die  ;"  yet 
holding  a  Christianity  of  so  equivocal  a  nature  as  to  ren- 
der it  very  dubious  whether  they  had  any  real  part  or  lot 
in  the  matter."  "  It  must  be  acknowledged  that  there 
is  scarce  one  of  the  fathers  who  hath  not  expressed  him- 
self in  terms  so  indistinct,  or  so  improper,"  &c.  P.  171. 
Hawies  is  high  Trinitarian  authority,  but  after  condem^- 
ing  the  principal  of  the  fathers,  says,  that  scarcely  one  is 
right.  Thus  the  highest  Trinitarian  authority  acknowl- 
edges that  the  primitive  church  denied  the  equality  of 
the  Son  with  the  Father,  and  repudiates  the  lathers.  I 
could  have  wished  to  have  read  the  words  of  some  forty 
of  the  fathers,  but  will  now  proceed  to  the  argument  on 
Elohim.  Their  argument  is,  that  Elohim  i-s  plural, 
viz:  Elohim  (the  Gods). 

Elohim  occurs.  Gen.  i,  1,  Berasheeth  hra  Elohim 
eth  hashaumaim  veeth  haarets.  In  the  beginning  God 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  On  this  they  argue 
that  as  Elohim  has  the  plural  termination,  it  should  be 
translated    Gods."    To  which  I  reply : 

1st.  That  if  Elohim  be  plural,  it  is  a  plurality  of  Gods^ 
rather  than  of  persons  ;  three  Gods  in  one  person  rather 
than  three  persons  in  one  God,  which,  also,  better  agrees 
with  their  doctrine  that  two  (beings)  natures,  very  God 
and  very  man,  constitute  one  person — one  Christ. 

2d.  The  Septuagint  version  renders  Elohim  into  the 
Greek,  by  Theos^  God,  in  the  singular  number,  and  thus 
16 


186 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


presents  seventy-two  Hebrew  scholars  against  my  bro- 
ther. They  translated  the  Old  Testament  about  250 
years  B.  C,  and  so  could  not  have  been  prejudiced. 

3d.  From  the  Septuagint  version  Jesus  almost  inva- 
riably quoted.  (See  Buck's  Theo.  Die.)  Hence,  Jesus 
is  against  my  brother,  and  in  favor  of  the  singular  form. 

4th.  The  Old  Testament  is  often  quoted  by  the  inspired 
apostles,  who  always  render  Elohim^  Hebrew,  by  Tlieos^ 
Greek,  in  the  singular.  So  that  all  the  apostles  ai-e 
against  the  plurality  of  persons. 

5th.  My  brother's  own  creed  is  against  him,  saying 
positively  that  there  is  "but  one  God." 

6th.  This  translation  would  not  make  simply  three, 
but  at  least  four  Gods  ;  for  as  the  dual  is  the  lowest  form 
of  the  plural,  so  Psalm  xlv,  7,  quoted  Heb.  i,  8,  God,  even 
thy  God,  should  be  rendered  "  Gods,  even  thy  Gods 
w^hich,  in  the  dual  form  of  the  noun,  would  make  four 
Gods,  and  in  the  triad  form,  six  Gods. 

7th.  Forty  Trinitarian  divines  translated  Elohim  by 
the  singular  noun  God,  as  it  stands  in  our  common  Eng- 
lish Bibles.  So  that  here  we  have  forty  Trinitarian 
Hebrew  scholars  against  my  brother. 

8th.  Nobody  believes  in  the  doctrine  claimed  by  the 
plural  form,  for  immediately  after  translating  it  "  Gods^'' 
they  will  say,  "yet  there  is  but  one  God."  This  my 
brother  does,  so  that  Ae  is  not  even  on  his  own  side  of 
the  argument. 

9th.  Professor  Stuart,  in  his  Heb.  Grammar,  p.  180, 
says,  "  For  the  sake  of  emphasis,  the  Hebrews  employed 
most  of  the  words  which  signify  Lord,  God,  &c.,  in  the 
plural  form,  but  vntli  the  sense  of  the  singular.  This  is 
called,  jphircdis  excellentiay 

10th.  Also,  Calvin,  Mercer,  Parens,  Drusius,  Bellar- 
mine,  and  others,  give  the  following  reasons,  why  Elo- 
him does  not  prove  a  plurality  of  persons: 

1.  Because  it  often  means  only  the  Father,  as  Ps.  xlv,  7. 

2.  Or  onlv  the  Son,  as  "  Thy  throne,  O  God."— Ibid. 

3.  Also,  "The  spirit  of  Elohim."— Gen.  i,  2. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


18T 


4.  Because  it  is  applied  to  one  calf. — Ex.  xxxii,  31. 

5.  It  is  applied  to  Moses. — Ex.  vii,  1. 

6.  It  is  applied  to  the  angel. — Judges  xiii,  22. 

7.  To  a  dragon. — Judges  xvi,  23. 

8.  To  Ashtoreth.— 1  Kings,  xi,  33. 

11th.  Other  words  are  likewise  in  the  plural,  as  own- 
ers, Ex.  xxi,  29 ;  Mastei-s,  xxi,  4 ;  Lords,  Holy  ones, 
beasts,  wounds,  rivers,  walls,  joys,  dreams,  deaths,  favors, 
wisdoms,  &c.  So  one  is  buried  in  the  towns  of  Gilead. 
Gen.  viii,  The  ark  rested  on  the  7noiintai7\s.  A  very 
high  walls;  or  One  dreamed  a  dreams;  while  another 
was  brought  from  the  graves. — Job  xxi.  32. 

12th.  Calvin  says,  **!  warn  my  readers  against  vio- 
lent interpretations  of  this  kind.'' 

13th.  Mercer  says,  From  other  passages  of  the  Scrip- 
ture, the  Trinity  can  be  more  clearly  and  easily  estab- 
lished."— Concessions,  p.  83. 

14:th.  Dr.  Campbell  says,  "  Calvin  refuted  this  argu- 
ment, or  quibble  rather."    See  Systematic  Theol.  p.  489. 

If  my  brother  gives  up  that  word,  all  well  and  good. 
I  wished  to  show  that  there  was  no  Trinity  in  it.  This 
I  have  done,  not  only  by  the  nature  of  the  word,  but  I 
have  proved  it  by  the  highest  Trinitarian  authority — such 
men  as  Stuart,  Calvin,  Luther,  &c.  My  brother  may 
reject  them,  as  he  did  Dr.  South  and  others ;  but  they 
will  not  be  rejected — let  him  therefore  treat  such  author- 
ities courteously. 

I  wish  my  brother  to  give  up  his  scheme  of  the  Trinity. 
It  is  untenable.  Far  better  theories  have  been  given  up 
by  those  in  the  Trinitarian  ranks,  and  will  be  again. 

I  wish  him  to  examine  more  thoroughly  those  texts 
which  speak  of  the  pre-existence  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  And  I  desire  the  congregation  to  notice,  how 
feignally  he  fails  in  every  argument  he  has  brought  for- 
ward to  support  his  theors\  And  I  want  you^  to  come 
ahead,  my  brother,  take  oil*  your  gloves,  and  come  up  to 
the  work ;  but  don't  fly  off  and  waste  your  time  in  ex- 
temporaneous declamations  and  exhortations. 


188 


DISCUSSIOX  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


Mk.  Flood's  Twelfth  reply : 

I  have  not  made  a  practice  of  quoting  learned  authors, 
unless  I  have  been  led  into  it,  but  if  I  have  given  any 
erroneous  quotations,  I  hope  the  reporters  will  make  the 
corrections.  I  quote  Watson  on  the  word  EloMin.  in  the 
article  God.  Here  is  one  very  res]Dectable  authority  that 
God  is  one ;  but  the  word  is  rendered  in  the  plural.  I  do 
not  wish  however,  to  protract  the  argument  in  that  respect. 
Isly  brother  wishes  to  know,  why  we  should  be  found  deny- 
ing any  of  these  learned  authors,  and  says  he  is  quoting 
authorities  on  the  opposite  side;  I  suppose  he  will  quote 
no  other  authority.  He  admitted  to  me,  in  a  private  re- 
mark, that  the  literary  men  of  the  world,  and  the  litera- 
ture of  the  world,  was  on  our  side,  but  he  wished  it  was 
on  his ;  I  should  not  think  it  strange,  if  he  would  most 
ardently  desire  that  the  literary  world  was  changed  upon 
this  subject,  but  perhaps,  after  his  performance,  it  may 
be  so.  I  ask  if  he  will  accept  the  authority  of  Kivcaid? 
My  brother  shakes  his  head.  He  refers  again  to  the 
question  of  the  Hol}^  Spirit,  and  quotes  some  passages  as 
to  the  time  it  was  introduced,  but  I  do  not  design  more 
than  just  referring  to  these  allusions.  He  says  also,  if 
the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  inferred  from  the 
association  in  the  Baptismal  ceremony,  that  the  personality 
of  Fire  may  as  well  be  predicated.  I  suppose  he  alludes 
to  what  John  says,  "  He  that  cometh  after  me  baptizeth 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.*'  Hence,  I  sup- 
pose, that  because  of  that  connection,  and  use  of  the 
term,  we  might  as  well  say,  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  Son,  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  Fire;" 
meaning  that  there  are  four  persons  in  the  Godhead,  into 
which  the  subject  is  baptized.  Then  perhaps,  my  bro- 
ther may  conceive  something  like  this  ;  "I  shall  baptize 
you  v:ith  the  Holy  Ghost  and  v:ith  Fire."  How  different 
indeed  !  I  suppose  my  brother  was  uncertain  what  to  do 
with  these  ;  but  as  it  was  something  formidable,  he  would 
resolve  to  attack  it ;  but  it  will  remain  an  insurmounta- 
ble barrier  to  all  his  attacks.    He  adverts  to  the  subject 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


189 


of  the  old  enemy.  Now  I  hoped  that  we  should  be  free 
from  that.  He  alludes  to  the  fact  that  I  prefer  the  term 
devil,  which  is  a  Scriptural  term,  to  the  term  rascal ;  and 
he  does  not  know  but  what  any  parent  would  prefer  to 
use  the  latter  term  before  their  child.  I  treated  him  as  a 
bad  and  corrupt  devil ;  hence,  I  have  no  reverence  when 
1  speak  the  name  of  the  devil.  If  I  regarded  him  as 
almighty,  as  possessing  the  attributes  of  the  divinity,  I 
might  entertain  some  fearful  notions  common  on  this 
subject.  He  says,  because  I  adverted  to  these,  I  wished 
to  make  fun  ;  this  seems  a  favorite  phrase  of  my  bro- 
ther's. Again,  he  says,  I  make  fun  of  him  in  calling 
him  a  second  Luther  ;  well  now,  if  these  are  not  words 
of  commendation,  and  if  I  did  not  think  them  compli- 
mentary, I  should  feel  under  an  obligation  to  make  an 
apology.  I  hope  he  will  be  willing  to  regard  it  in  this 
light ;  one  of  his  most  devoted  admirers  called  him  by 
this  name.  The  only  discovery  for  which  I  claim  credit, 
is  that  of  his  being  a  great  luminary.  He  certainly  has 
poured  the  radiance  of  his  understanding  around  my 
mind,  but  hitherto  tailed  to  produce  much  efiect.  He 
complains  of  me  for  not  submerging  him  before  this  ;  I 
do  not  wish  to  drown  him — I  am  not  that  Flood  that  de- 
stroyed the  world.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  he  should 
breathe  wholesome  air,  for  1  hope  to  find  him  trying  to 
overturn  the  creed  of  the  Methodists,  and  make  it  appear 
that  their  doctrines  are  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the 
AYord  of  God ;  in  asserting  that  there  are  three  persons 
in  the  Godhead,  equal  in  substance,  power,  glory,  and 
eternity  with  Jesus  Christ,  the  second  person  in  the  Tri- 
nity and  is  equal  in  all  these  perfections  with  the  Father. 

This  is  the  point  which  1  hope  to  see  him  make  an 
efibrt  to  disprove,  before  he  shall  have  done  his  work. 
He  desires  me  to  direct  my  attention  to  John  xvi,  28, 
I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am  come  into  the 
world.''  Again :  "  I  leave  the  world  and  go  to  the 
Father."  Is  there  any  place  in  the  whole  universe, 
where  any  creature  can  be  separated  from  the  absolute 


190 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


presence  of  God?  Is  not  this  language  used  in  an  ac- 
commodative sense  ?  When  Christ  speaks  of  himself 
as  coming  out,  it  is  not  understood  that  he  comes  out,  in 
the  sense  that  a  man  would  come  out  from  a  city  and  go 
from  one  place  to  another.  Now,  Christ  declares : 
"  Know  ye  not  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father 
in  me."  He  uses  this  language  at  the  time  of  his  in- 
carnation, and  employs  the  language  come  out,"  "  and 
sent,"  frequently  to  show  that  lie  came  to  our  sinful 
world,  and  that  he  came  down  to  the  condition  of  our 
helpless  nature ;  that  he  took  upon  himself  human 
nature,  and  thereby  he  came  to  unite  himself  with  it, 
taking  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  that  he  might 
lift  up  human  nature  from  its  fallen  and  degraded  con- 
dition, and  restore  it  to  the  forfeited  favor  of  Heaven. 
The  phrases  to  which  I  have  referred,  are  not  to  be  taken 
in  their  absolute  sense.  He  assumes  that  my  system  gave 
to  God  a  body ;  and  that  if  it  were  so,  according  to  my 
system,  that  Christ  might  with  propriety  appear  on  the 
right  hand  of  that  body.  Now,  here  is  sometiiing  more 
of  our  brother's  peculiar  style  of  argument.  I  hold  tliat 
the  infinite  periections  of  Jehovah,  the  Father,  and  the 
"Word,  and  tlie  Holy  Ghost,  dwell  bodily  in  Jesus  Christ. 
How  then,  could  that  body,  in  a  literal  sense,  sit  upon 
the  right  hand  of  another,  unless  that  they  had  a  body 
also?  Now,  the  point  I  wish  to  know  is  this:  He  ad- 
mits that  Christ  has  a  body,  and  the  relation  which  that 
body  sustains  to  God ;  then  the  point  is,  has  God  a  body 
independent  of  the  physical  body  of  Christ  ?  When 
you  come  to  answer  this,  you  will  find  me  somewhere 
about  you  Vv^ith  the  gloves  off;  and  when  I  am  disposed 
to  give  3'ou  a  passage  homeward,  I  will  lift  the  flood- 
gates higher  than  you  have  yet  seen  them.  It  is  said, 
that 

"  Little  boats  should  keep  neai*  shore, 
But  larger  boats  may  venture  more." 

My  brother  remarks :  Christ  was  conceived  by  the  mira- 
culous overshadowing  of  the  Virgin  Mary  by  the  Holy 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


191 


Ghost.  See  Luke  i,  35.  "And  the  angel  answered  and 
said  unto  her,  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and 
the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  ;  there- 
fore also,  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.*'  Why  is  Christ  called 
the  Son  of  God  ?  Because  he  is  the  begotten  of  the 
Father.  It  is  the  conclusion  announced  by  the  heavenly 
messenger,  and  the  evidence  is  given — he  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  God,  for  the  very  reason  that  he  is  begotten 
of  the  Holy  Spirit :  hence  his  name  shall  be  Son  of  God. 
Prior  to  this,  I  have  shown,  John  i,  14,  he  was  known 
as  the  Word  or  Logos  ;  and  if  I  differ  from  those  who 
advocate  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  on  the  Sonship,  it 
does  not  affect  the  argument  in  the  slightest  degree ;  it 
rather  strengthens  my  position.  He  is  termed  a  Holy 
Thing ;  but  previous  to  this  he  is  termed  by  John^  the 
Word,  or  Logos,  which  was  in  the  beginning.  Well 
may  he  be  called  holy !  Here  is  a  twofold  argument. 
The  humanity  itself  is  not  by  the  ordinary  generation,  but 
humanity  in  its  perfection.  He  that  created  a  perfect 
man  in  the  beginning,  like  Adam;  he  that  has  all 
power,  and  that  formed  a  perfect  human  body  out  of 
dust,  had  the  same  power,  if  he  thought  proper,  to  repro- 
duce one  of  a  similar  nature,  as  to  body  and  soul — bad 
he  not  the  power  to  make  one  of  the  same  kind  ?  Made 
of  a  woman,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  the  curse  of 
the  law,  and  be  made  a  sin-offering  for  us,  had  he  not 
the  power,  by  the  Holy  Ghost  coming  upon  and  oversha- 
dowing the  Virgin  Mary,  to  produce  a  perfect  human 
nature  %  The  first  Adam  was  made  a  man  in  the  begin- 
ning, but  the  reproduction  of  the  second  Adam,  was  th^ 
Lord  of  Heaven.  He  came  into  the  world  in  the  help- 
lessness of  infancy,  passed  through  the  ordinary  stages 
of  development,  both  as  to  physical  constitution  and 
mental  endowment;  it  seems,  however,  to  have  been 
very  rapidly  matured,  for  at  twelve  years  of  age  he  was 
found  in  the  temple  disputing  with  the  doctors.  Here, 
this  is  om-  position :  that  the  second  Adam  came  by  the 


192 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  overshadowing  the  Yirgin 
Mary.  Here  is  our  God-man — here  is  our  union  of  the 
divine  and  the  human  nature  together,  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ,  never  to  be  separated  permanently.  Now, 
when  my  brother  says  we  have  given  up  anything  of 
this  subject,  let  it  rest  in  the  mind  of  the  audience,  the 
conviction  that  nothing  has  been  given  up.  Here,  seve- 
ral  quotations  made  from  authors  by  my  good  friend, 
were  certainly  balanced  by  those  I  presented.  I  notice 
that  some  of  those  to  whom  reference  has  been  made 
wrote  as  early  as  the  year  107.  This  did  not  give  very 
much  time  tor  any  serious  departure  from  the  true  faith, 
for  John  had  almost  lived  to  see  this  period,  (Poly- 
carp  reached  this  period,  saw  and  conversed  with  John), 
and  was  one  of  the  early  candidates  for  martyrdom  in 
the  Christian  Church :  hence,  I  notice,  we  have  here  the 
doctrine  clearly  set  forth,  showing  the  equality  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  constituting  the  one  true 
God  of  the  Bible.  However  many  conflicting  authors 
he  may  have  brought  forward  on  Eloliim^  at  least  some 
respectable  authorities  state  that  this  word  stands  in  a 
plural  form,  and  not  in  the  singular,  and  the  term  should 
be  rendered  Gods,  not  God — at  the  same  time,  it  does 
apply  to  one  living  and  true  God.  Hence,  we  have 
here,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  equality 
with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  his  omnipo- 
tence ;  for  he  asserted,  "  All  power  in  heaven  and  earth 
is  given  into  my  hands ;  I  have  power  to  lay  down  my 
life,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again."  We  notice 
also,  that  the  attribute  of  omniscience  was  given  Christ — 
"  that  he  knew  all  things,"  is  the  language  of  Peter. 
This  point  seems  sufficiently  clear — "  Lord,  thou  knowest 
all  things  ;  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee,"  The  omni- 
science of  Christ  is  also  made  to  appear.  In  connection 
with  this,  we  may  infer  that  he  is  omnipotent.  Three 
passages  bearing  upon  this,  my  brother  has  dodged,  or 
in  feeble  language  attacked  them,  as  he  calls  it.  "Where- 
ever  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name, 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  193 

there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them."  This  involves  the 
obligation  of  Christ  to  be  in  every  place.  He  says  that 
he  might  be  in  dilferent  places  at  the  same  time,  and 
not  be  omnipresent.  I  know  not  how  he  will  make  this 
appear.  I  can  very  easily  conceive  how  he  could  be  in 
an  infinite  number  of  given  places  at  the  same'  time,  as 
well  as  I  could  understand  his  presence  in  a  limited 
number.  If  he  allows  the  fact  of  his  being  in  more  than 
one  place  at  the  same  time,  the  omnipresence  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  admitted.  I  assumed,  if  he  could  be  in  more 
than  one  place,  he  might  be  in  every  place  at  the  same 
time ;  and  hence  he  nmst  be  omnipresent.  This  point 
will  be  strengthened  by  other  testimony.  I  want  to 
point  out  to  you  that  which  has  been  allowed — that  he 
may  be  in  many  places  at  the  same  time.  I  am  happy 
for  this  admission ;  if  it  were  not  so,  he  would  not  be 
an  all-sufficient  Saviour;  if  otherwise,  he  could  not 
render  succor  in  the  hour  of  need — as  ''Where  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  his  name,  there  am  I 
(says  Christ)  in  the  midst  of  them  for  he  pervades  the 
universe,  he  occupies  and  pervades  immensity  with  his 
spiritual  presence,  and  is  capable  of  being  everywhere 
to  supply  the  wants  and  necessities  of  those  who  wor- 
ship him  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  And  I  say  to  you,  in 
conclusion,  hold  on  to  the  doctrine  of  your  Christ,  the 
Father  and  God  ;  it  is  your  only  hope  of  salvation  ;  it 
is  your  only  hope  of  succor  amid  all  the  trials  and  ills 
of  life.  I  do  this,  in  opposition  to  my  brother's  invita- 
tion, to  come  over  and  deliver  up  your  faith  to  him. 
Why  does  he  desire  us  to  come  over  and  join  his  ranks  ? 
Is  it  the  wish  for  our  assistance  ?  Until  orthodoxy 
trembles  more  under  the  giant  tread  of  my  brother,  I 
shall  certainly  be  found  somewhere  clinging  about  this 
old  doctrine,  taught  by  the  evangelists,  asserted  by  the 
apostles,  proclaimed  by  Christ,  sustained  by  the  apos- 
tles— this  doctrine,  supported  by  the  true  Church  of  the 
living  God  in  all  ages  of  the  world.  I  shall  certainly 
not  abandon  my  faith :  notwithstanding  all  the  appealing 
17 


194 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


exhortations  of  my  brother,  it  is  the  doctrine  upon  which 
all  my  hopes  for  time  and  for  eternity  are  suspended. 
On  them  I  trust  in  life  and  in  death.  The  heavenly 
record  tells  me  those  everlasting  arms  shall  be  under- 
neath me;  and  the  same  arms  that  sustain  the  pillars  of 
the  universe,  they  are  the  same  arms  that  are  underneath 
the  everlasting  throne  —  the  arm  of  omnipotence;  and 
upon  this  will  I  hang  my  hopes  of  salvation,  and  not 
upon  any  arm  of  a  being  inferior  to  God,  the  Father. 

Mr.  Sumiviekbell's  Thirteenth  address : 

Kind  friends — During  the  discussion  here  I  have  been 
placed  upon  the  affirmative  of  a  negative  proposition,  to 
discuss  the  truthfulness  of  the  Trinity.  My  faith  is  not 
the  question.  It  is  not,  therefore,  my  duty  to  affirm  it, 
although  I  did  so  to  some  extent.  1  do  not,  however,  wish 
you  to  be  unacquainted  with  our  principles.  We  receive 
the  Bible  as  a  full  and  complete  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 
the  only  one  authorized  by  God,  or  received  by  the  apos- 
tolic church :  all-sufficient  to  make  the  man  of  God  per- 
fect, thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works — wise 
unto  salvation.  We  hold  that  "  unto  us  there  is  but  one 
God  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things  and  w^e  in  him ; 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and 
we  by  him.  We  do  not  divide  God  into  persons,  nor 
parts.  To  us  he  is  ever  One,  Infinite,  Eternal,  and  Un- 
changeable, always  God ;  never  a  priest  or  mediator,  but 
for  ever  God.  We  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  His  Son, 
and  was  His  Son  before  angels  or  men  existed  ;  the  first 
begotten,  first-born,  only-begotten,  the  only  Son — the  Son 
of  the  living  God — by  whom  He  made,  saves,  and  will 
judge  the  world.  Not  a  mere  man,  or  "very  man," 
like  my  brother ;  for  how  could  such  a  One  be  the  Son 
of  God  by  whom  God  made  the  worlds  ?  We  believe  in 
repentance,  faith,  hope,  and  charity ;  in  conversion,  the 
new  birth,  justification.  We  believe  in  the  atonement, 
sanctification,  and  holiness  of  life.  We  think  that  to 
be  a  Christian,  is,  not  to  obey  the  doctrines  and  com- 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


195 


mandments  of  men,  but  to  be  like  Christ ;  to  speak  like 
him,  think  like  him,  feel  like  him,  and  act  like  him  ;  to 
practise  his  religion  and  be  conformed  to  his  image. 
Such  was  the  religion  of  the  Apostolic  church  ;  and  such 
is  ours.  A  religion,  not  got  up  by  men,  but  revealed 
from  heaven. 

My  brother  says,  that  I  admitted,  in  a  private  conver- 
sation, that  the  literary  world  was  on  his  side.  If  this 
was  done  in  o.  private  conversation,  it  was  not  courteous 
in  him  to  use  it  in  public.  But  I  think  not.  I  said  the 
literature  of  the  world ;  and  you  all  know  what  we, 
ministers  of  the  Gospel,  think  of  it.  I  do  not,  however, 
admit  that  the  really  literary  men  of  the  world  are  on 
his  side.  I  claim  first,  all  the  eminent  Christian  fa- 
thers for  the  first  three  centuries.  I  claim  all  the  oldest 
church  historians  on  my  side.  Neander  will  testify  that 
the  Trinity  was  not  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Chris- 
tian church ;  and  that  the  anti-Nicene  church  held  the 
subordination  of  the  Son ;  and  Barnes  plainly  repudiates 
the  Nicene  creed  as  anti-Trinitarian.  My  brother  can 
not  find  a  man  in  the  Christian  church,  as  early  as  Poly- 
carp,  who  ever  used  the  word  Trinity.  Trinitarians  are 
dependent  upon  Eusebius,  whom  they  call  an  Arian,  for 
the  history  of  the  primitive  church.  All  through  the 
dark  ages,  and  in  the  Reformation,  the  most  learned  men 
in  the  world  held  our  views.  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  and 
many  others  of  the  most  learned  bishops  of  the  Church 
of  England,  denied  the  equality  of  the  Son,  as  testified 
byMosheim.  O,  no!  I  can  not  give  up  such  men  as 
Whiston,  and  Sir  Isaac  Kewton,  and  Locke,  and  Milton, 
and  Isaac  Watts,  the  sweet  poet ;  who  repented  writing 
those  doxologies  to  the  Trinity,  and  would  have  destroyed 
them  had  he  not  sold  the  copyright  of  his  book.  I  wdll 
not  give  up  such  men  as  these — the  true  literary  men  of 
the  world;  men  who  could  not  cramp  their  intellects 
into  the  absurd  idea,  that  one  side  of  a  triangle  is  equal 
to  its  three  sides,  on  the  word  of  Athanasius,  nor  even 
the  authority  of  a  human  creed. 


196 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TKINITT. 


My  brother  says,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire ;  but  the  Bible  does  not 
say  so,  and  I  choose  to  believe  the  Bible.  But  he  bap- 
tizes in  the  name  of  the  Son,  not  "Koyo^ ;  and  how  would 
it  read  to  say  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  a  creature,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Yet 
my  brother  believes  that  the  Son  of  God  is  a  creature, 
only  1800  years  old.  John  xiii,  3,  Jesus  knowing  that 
the  Father  had  given  all  things  into  his  hands,  and  that 
he  was  come  y/'o;?z  God,  and  went  to  God,"  he  says  that 
he  can  not  believe  as  it  stands  literally.  If  he  can  not 
believe  it  as  it  stands,  I  wish  him  to  explain  what  he 
does  believe. 

Jesus  says,  "  I  came  out  from  the  Father:  I  came  down 
from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will."  God  sent  his 
Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh.  God  gave  his  Son — 
sent  his  Son.  He  who  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal 
with,  or  like  God,  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and 
became  obedient  to  death."  Who  was  this  ?  He  says, 
that  "  he  came  out  from  God."  I  want  my  brother  to 
explain. 

Luke  i,  35,  "The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee," 
&c.  "  Therefore,  that  Holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of 
thee,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God."  My  brother  made 
a  great  mistake  here.  He  says,  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
must  be  a  person,  as  truly  as  the  Father  is  a  person ;  for 
the  Holy  Ghost  begat  Christ ;  and  it  says  in  another 
place  that  the  Father  begat  Christ,  &c.  He  holds  that 
the  Father  is  the  first  person,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
the  third  person,  distinct  from  the  Father — independent 
and  distinct  persons ;  and  the  Athanasian  creed  says,  that 
if  we  confound  the  persons,  without  doubt  we  shall 
perish  everlastingly. 

Now  my  brother  has  shown  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
third  person,  begat  Jesus,  and  that  the  Father,  the  first 
person,  begat  him  (Jesus).  So  that  according  to  his 
theory  two  persons  begat  Jesus.  Jesus  has  two  fathers ! 
And  this  is  a  just  conclusion,  if  the  Trinity  be  true  !  But 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


19T 


that  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin  was  not  simply  man. 
John  i,  14,  The  Word — which  was  in  the  beginning 
with  God — was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we 
beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten  of 
the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth.  He  now  challenges 
me  to  prove  that  he  denied  the  eternity  of  the  Son, 
and  most  positively  affirms  that  he  did  not.  Very  well ! 
I  read  in  Clarke,  "  If  Christ  be  the  Son  of  God,  as  to  his 
divine  nature,  then  the  Father  is  prior  and  superior;  the 
phrase  Eternal  Son  is  a  positive  self-contradiction,  absurd 
and  dangerous ;"  and  you  well  remember  that  he  then 
said,  that  he  did  not  believe  that  the  Son  was  eternal,  and 
apologized  for  differing  from  Watson. 

He  now  thinks  as  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  Abraham  and  the 
Son  of  David,  &c.,  that  he  must  be  "  very  man,"  simply 
human,  because  he  must  partake  of  their  nature,  as  the 
child  is  a  partaker  of  its  parents'  nature.  But  the  "  Hu- 
manity," was  not  born  in  the  ordinary  manner  of  gener- 
ation, but  was  begotten  of  the  Great  Father,  God  !  So 
on  his  own  principles  of  interpretation,  it  could  not  be 
"  very  man,"  simple  humanity ;  for,  since  it  would  par- 
take of  its  Father's  nature,  it  must  be  part  divine.  Here 
his  very  man  idea  is  destroyed.  Now,  my  brother,  do 
not  back  out  again.  Come  right  on,  and  as  fast  as  you 
see  your  error,  forsake  it.  He  says,  that  God  produced 
a  perfect  human  being  just  like  Adam — just  as  good  as 
Adam,  and  just  as  human.  This  is  truly  very  compli- 
mentary to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He  has  just  been 
trying  to  prove  him  equal  to  God  ;  and  now  he  is  trying  to 
prove  that  he  is  equal  to  Adam — as  good  as  Adam  !  Jesus 
Christ  is  greater  and  possesses  more  virtue  than  Adam 
and  all  the  children  of  Adam  that  ever  lived.  Equal  to 
Adam!  Paul  says,  in  1  Cor.  xv,  45-47,  "  The  first  Adam 
was  of  the  earth,  earthy;  the  second  Adam  (Christ)  is 
the  Lord  from  heaven."  Does  this  make  them  just 
equal  ?  He  says  that  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity 
entered  the  world  as  a  helpless  infant ;  but  that  he  (that 
is,  the  second  person,)  rapidly  improved  and  matured  in 


198 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


his  mental  and  physical  faculties.  That  is,  God  was  a 
helpless  infant — God  improved  and  matured  I !  !  (fee.  This 
seems  to  require  some  further  explanation,  for  my  brother 
has  several  times  denied  it.  We  wait  his  reply.  In  the 
heat  of  my  brothers  argument  he  maintained,  that  as 
Polycarp  lived  almost  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  his 
testimony  must  be  good  for  the  Trinity.  But  he  did  not 
read  him.  but  read  from  Justin  Martyr,  who  is  given  up 
as  an  Arian  by  Hawies,  the  Trinitarian  and  historian. 
My  brother  will  find  no  Trinity  in  Polycarp.  He  says 
that  he  has  some  respectable  authorities  on  his  side  for 
Elohim.  But  what  authority  can  he  have?  All  the 
principal  authorities  are  on  my  side.  Let  him  bring 
them  forward,  and  we  will  see  what  they  say. 

He  quotes  that  Christ  will  be  wherever  two  or  three 
are  assembled  in  his  name,  and  says,  that  "  any  person 
who  can  be  in  more  than  one  place  at  a  time,  must  be 
omnipresent."  But  Paul  says,  Colossians  ii,  5,  "  Though 
I  be  absent  in  the  flesh,  yet  am  I  with  you  in  the  spirit, 
joying  and  beholding  your  order,  and  the  steadfastness 
of  your  faith  in  Christ ;"  and  1  Cor.  v,  3,  "  I  also  as 
absent  in  body,  but  present  in  spirit,  have  judged  alrea- 
dy." So  Christ,  while  absent  in  body,  is  present  in  spirit. 
Was  Paul  omnipresent  ?  I  suppose  that  my  brother 
can  explain  these  passages  away ;  he  can  explain  away 
just  what  he  wants  away,  and  leave  what  he  wants  to 
leave,  and  he  could  explain  the  others  just  as  well,  if  he 
wished. 

My  brother  makes  no  attempt  to  explain  my  argument 
on  the  pei-sonal  pronouns  in  the  singular  number,  applied 
to  God,  viz :  I.  Me,  My,  Thou,  Thee,  Thy,  &c.  /am  God, 
and  beside  3Ie.  This  /and  Jfe,  are  only  one  person ; 
yet,  this  one  person  says  I  am  God,  and  beside  Jle  there 
is  none  else.  This  being  but  one  person,  thus  destroys 
the  Trinity,  since  it  says  that  no  person  but  one  is  God. 
If  three  persons  were  all  God,  it  would  be  We,  Oicr,  Us, 
You,  Yours,  Them,  They,  &c.  If  my  brother  were  right, 
it  would  read,  We  are  God,  and  beside  us  there  is  no 


DISCUSSION   ON  THE  TRINITY. 


199 


God.  God  is  three.  The  Lord  our  God,  is  three  Lords. 
But  for  such  doctrine,  he  must  go  to  the  creeds  and  dox- 
ologies.  I  want  my  brother  to  define  what  he  means  by 
three  persons.  What  does  personality  mean  ?  What 
person  is  there  that  is  not  a  being  ?  And  how  can  a  per- 
son exist  without  being  ?  And  who  told  him  that  the 
three  persons  in  the  Trinity,  were  not  three  beings  ?  and 
why,  if  his  views  be  really  orthodox,  nothing  is  said 
about  them  in  the  Bible  ?  Let  my  brother  explain  Mark 
xiii,  32,  and  tell  us  why  the  Son  did  not  know  ?  Matt, 
xxiv,  26,  nor  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  the  Father  only  ?  Lie 
has  not  yet  answered,  whether  he  that  took  the  book  out 
of  the  right  hand  of  him  that  sat  upo^  the  throne,  Eev.  v, 
is  the  same  being  who  sat  upon  the  throne  ?  Let  him 
answer  this. 

Now  comes  his  authority  on  Elohim.  He  appealed  to 
Watson,  to  prove  that  the  text  should  be  translated,  "  In 
the  beginning  the  Gods  created  the  heavens,  and  the 
earth."  Well!  this  proves  it,  providing  the  authority 
can  be  depended  upon.  And  what  then  ?  Why,  my 
brother  now  has  three  Gods,  or  why  does  he  quote  such 
authority  ?  why  prove  it,  if  he  does  not  believe  it  ?  He 
says  that  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead ;  but 
Watson  says  Gods.''^  My  brother  may  say  that  they 
are  not  Gods,  but  are  they  not  three  infinite  persons  ? 
He  says  that  they  are  not  Gods,  simply,  because  the 
Bible  says  that  there  is  but  one  God.  But  if  he  proves 
three  Gods,  then  the  Bible  stands  corrected  by  his  theory. 
''They  say,  Jehovah  the  Gods."  "  In  the  beginning  the 
Gods."  Now  if  this  is  not  true,  w^hy  does  he  quote  it,  and 
call  it  authority  ?  He  sa3'S  that  three  infinite  beings 
could  not  exist,  &c.;  but  they  could  exist  just  as  well  as 
three  infinite  persons,  personality  always  includes  being. 
There  is  no  difierence  whatever  between  persons  and^ 
beings.  What  is  a  person,  is  a  being.  There  is  not  a 
solitary  reason  which  can  be  urged  against  three  infinite 
beings,  which  is  not  just  as  strong  against  three  infinite 
persons.    If  three  persons  are  each  infinite,  then  they  are 


200 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


all  Gods.  If  they  are  equal  in  substance,  substance 
must  include  being,  hence  three  beiugs — three  Gods ; 
but  if  they  are  not  substances,  then  they  are  nothing. 
Each  of  the  three  possessing  equal  power,  equal  glory, 
equal  eternity,  there  must  be,  b}^  his  own  showing,  three 
Gods.  Three  persons  all  omnipotent.  Three  persons 
all  omnipresent.  Three  persons  all  omniscient.  Three 
persons  each  of  whom  had  all  the  infinite  attributes,  must 
be  three  Gods.  I  demand  of  my  brother,  if  his  three  per- 
sons are  not  three  Gods,  to  tell  what  would  constitute  them 
three  Gods  ?  What  do  they  lack  ?  What  would  be  three 
Gods,  if  they  are  not  ?  What  three  are  they,  if  they  are 
not  three  Gods  ?  My  friends,  the  only  way  to  be  con- 
sistent, is  to  abandon  your  favorite  theory.  Abandon 
your  creed  (Constitution  and  Discipline).  Tliis  you  may 
safely  do,  for  it  has  only  earthly  authority,  and  although 
he  exhorts  you  to  stick  to  it  as  your  only  liope^  don't  you 
believe  it.  Thousands  were  saved  before  any  such  Dis- 
cipline was  thought  of  in  the  world,  and  thousands  are 
now  saved  who  do  not  believe  in  it ;  yea,  happy  am  I  that 
my  brother's  salvation  does  not  depend  upon  his  faith 
in  it. 

My  brother  is  not  satisfied  that  EloJiim  should  be  ren- 
dered God,  but  is  sure  that  it  should  be  "  Gods !"  but 
my  friends,  Clarke  himself,  when  the  Trinity  is  not  to  be 
supported,  consents  that  it  should  be  translated  God.  On 
Gen.  iii,  5,  "  Your  eyes  shall  be  opened,  and  ye  shall  be 
as  Gods,"  Clarke  says :  Your  understandings  shall  be 
greatly  enlightened  and  improved,  and  ye  shall  be  as 
Gods,  D^n7«3  lie  EloMm^  '  like  God,'  so  the  word  should 
be  translated,  for  what  idea  could  our  first  parents  have 
of  Gods." — Clarke's  Notes  on  Genesis  iii,  5. 

In  Acts  vii,  59,  "They  stoned  Stephen  calling  upon 
God,  and  saying.  Lord  Jesus  receive  my  spirit."  The 
word  God  is  supplied  by  the  translators.  Neither  Cole- 
ridge nor  Locke,  think  that  this  was  properly  prayer, 
since  Jesus  was  visible.  Whether  it  was  or  not,  is  not 
material  to  the  question,  as  long  as  my  brother  admits 


DISCUSSION   ON   THE  TKINITT. 


201 


Rev.  i,  4.  is  an  invocation  for  grace,  from  the  seven 
angels!  Coleridge  was  a  Trinitarian.  Locke  I  quote, 
simply,  as  a  great  scholar  and  Christian  philosopher ;  but 
not  as  authority,  since  he  belongs  to  my  side  of  the  house, 
on  this  question.  His  opinion  on  Komans  ix,  5,  '*  Christ 
came,  who  is  o^r  all  God  blessed  forever,"  is,  that,  it 
should  be  rendered,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all ;  God 
be  blessed  forever.  1  wish  to  quote  none,  but  the  first 
class  of  authors.  Coleridge,  on  Mark  xiii,  32,  says :  This 
most  difficult  text  I  have  not  seen  satisfactorily  ex- 
plained.''— Lit.  Kemains  iv,  219-20.  He  rejects  the 
two-nature  scheme. 

I  want  this  congregation  to  remember,  that  my  brother 
has  not,  in  the  three  days'  debate,  confessed  that  he  would 
worship  the  Jesus  that  died  for  him.  He  will  worship 
the  Divine  nature  that  was  in  him,  but  the  Divine  nature, 
he  holds,  could  not  suffer  or  die,  and  was  not  that  person 
that  was  begotten  and  could,  and  did  suffer  and  die.  He 
will  worship  the  God  that  Jesus  prayed  to,  and  so  will 
Socinians ;  but  the  man  of  sorrows,  the  suffering  Jesus, 
whose  sweat  falls  to  the  ground  as  great  drops  of  blood, 
that  Jesus  who  said,  my  soul  is  exceedingly  sorrowful 
even  unto  death,  and  whom  the  angel  strengthened,  he 
will  not  woiship,  because  he  says,  he  is  a  creature,  and  it 
would  be  idolatry.  He  will  worship  him  as  God,  that  is, 
he  will  worship  the  God  who  dwelt  in  him ;  for  if  he 
means  he  will  woi*ship  the  very  man,  as  God,  he  has 
decided  that  to  be  idolatry.  Look  at  him,  my  brother. 
Look  at  that  brow  pierced  with  thorns.  Ah  !  you  reply, 
that  is  a  human  brow,  I  can  not  worship  it.  Look  at  that 
back,  scourged  and  bleeding.  Ah !  you  reply,  that  is 
the  back  of  a  man,  I  can  not  worship  that.  Look  at  the 
face,  all  marred  by  blows,  torn  by  plucking  off  the  hair 
and  defiled  by  spitting,  and  those  eyes  all  blinded  by 
clotted  gore  ;  but  you  will  not  worship  the  sufierer  ;  you 
esteem  him  stricken,  smitten  of  God  and  afflicted  ;  you 
will  worship  the  God  that  supported  him.  So  did  the 
Jews,  who  rejected  him.    Look  at  the  cross,  and  an- 


202 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


swer  what  is  the  nature  of  that  body.  The  answer  is, 
that  that  is  a  human  body.  Look  at  those  outstretched, 
bleeding  hands  and  feet ;  see  where  the  cruel  iron  pierced 
them,  and  tell  me  the  nature  of  those  hands  ;  but  he  says 
that  they  are  human  hands.  Look  at  those  eyes,  beam- 
ing with  compassion  for  his  enemies — see  the  look  of 
anguish  and  sorrow  cast  upon  Peter ;  but  still  the  answer 
is,  they  are  created  eyes.  The  lips  they  touch  with  gall 
are  created  lips.  The  voice  that  said  Father,  forgive,  was 
a  creature's  voice.  Hear  him  cry,  My  God,  my  God,  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  Ah !  cries  my  brother,  that  is 
what  I  worship — the  God  that  forsook  him ;  but  I  can 
not  worship  the  forsaken — the  Lamb  slain — the  very 
man — the  creature.  God  can  not  sufier.  God  can  not 
die,  and  he  will  not  worship  that  which  can.  The  bleed- 
ing, groaning,  dying,  he  will  not  worship.  The  suffering 
Jesus,  the  Lamb  slain,  worshiped  by  angels,  is  rejected  as 
a  creature  unworthy  of  worship  by  Trinitarians.  My 
friends,  worship  Jesus.  Worship  him  as  the  Son  of  God. 
Worship  him  as  the  Lamb  slain  ;  so  the  saints  and  angels 
in  heaven  worship  God  and  the  Lamb.  Those  are  idola- 
ters, not  who  worship  the  Son  as  the  Son  of  God^  but 
who  worship  others  as  God,  beside  the  one  true  and  living 
God — who  honor  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator  I 
who  have  other  gods  beside  him  who  said,  beside  Me 
there  is  no  God  ?  Let  my  brother  explain.  If  he  wor- 
ships his  God's  body  as  God,  then  he  worships  a  creature. 
If  he  rejects  it,  then  he  does  not  worship  all  of  his  God. 
If  he  worships  Jesus'  human  nature  as  God,  then  he 
worships  a  creature  as  God,  and  according  to  his  own 
logic,  is  an  idolater ;  while,  if  he  rejects  it,  as  he  must, 
then  he  only  worships  a  part  of  his  Jesus,  viz :  the  Divine 
nature  that  dwelt  in  him.  We,  says  the  apostle,  are 
partakers  of  the  Divine  nature,  but  that  natui*e  is  not  us. 

Me.  Flood's  Thirteenth  reply ; 

I  am  quite  gratified,  in  one  particular,  at  the  sobriety 
of  my  good  brother's  spirit.    He  enters  calmly  on  the 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


203 


discussion.  This  is  very  gratifying.  I  advanced  an  argu- 
ment from  Dr.  Watson,  on  the  word  Eloliim^  which  in 
Genesis  i,  stands  in  the  plural  form — a  plurality  of  per- 
sons existing  in  the  Godliead.  This  position  is  sustained 
by  Dr.  Clarke,  in  an  extensive  view  of  the  subject.  Tie 
presents  it  in  a  critical  manner,  showing,  that  as  the  root 
of  this  word  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  original  Hebrew,  it 
must  be  traced  to  its  verb,  and  that  verb  must  be  found 
in  the  Arabic.  And  here  it  is  found  connected  with  its 
genitive,  subjoined  to  verbs  and  pronouns  in  the  plural. 
He  then  presents  a  number  of  passages,  which  I  will 
quote  to  my  brother,  to  direct  his  attention  to  them,  so 
that  he  may  investigate  this  subject  further. 

Clarke  on  Gen.  i.  "The  original  word  Elohim,  God,  has 
long  been  supported  by  the  most  eminently  learned  and 
pious  men,  to  imply  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Divine 
nature.  As  this  plurality  appears  in  so  many  parts  of  the 
Sacred  writings  to  be  confined  to  three  persons,  hence  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which  has  formed  a  part  of  the 
creed  of  all  those  who  have  been  deemed  sound  in  the 
faith  from  the  earliest  ages  of  Christianity.  He  must  be 
strangely  prejudiced,  indeed,  who  can  not  see  that  the 
doctrine  of  a  Trinity,  and  of  a  Trinity  in  unity,  is  clearly 


ted,  being  joined  in  the  singular  number  with  this  plural 
noun,  has  been  considered  as  pointing  out,  and  not 
obscurely,  the  unity  of  the  Divine  ])ersons  in  this  work 
of  creation,  in  the  ever  blessed  Trinity  :  from  the  infinite 
and  indivisible  unity  of  the  persons,  there  can  bo  but  one 
will,  one  purpose,  and  one  infinite  and  uncontrollable 
energy.  Let  those  who  have  any  doubt  whether  Elohim^ 
when  meaning  the  true  God,  Jehovah,  be  plural  or  not, 
consult  the  following  passages,  where  they  will  find  it 
joined  with  adjectives,  verbs,*and  pronouns  plural :  Gen. 
i,  26;  iii,  22;  xi,  7;  xx,  13;  xxxi,  7,  53;  xxxv,  7;  Deut.  iv, 
7;v,  23;  Josh,  xiv,  19;  iSam.iv,  8;  2  Sam.  vii,  23;  Ps. 
lviii,12;  Is.vi,  8;  Jer.x,  10;  xxiii,  56;  Prov.  ix,  10;  xxx,  3; 
Ps.  cxlix,  2;  Ec.  v,7;  xii,  1;  Job  v,  1;  Is.  vi,3;  Ixiv,  5;  Is.  Ixii, 
5;  Hos.  xi,  12;  xii,  1;  Mat.  i,  6;  Dan.  v.  3  ^ 


The  verb  hara^  he  crea- 


204 


DSSCUSSIOX  ox  THE  TRIXITT. 


In  all  ot  these  passages,  numberinor  about  thirty,  the 
word  stands  in  this  form,  and  the  brother  will  have  an 
opportunity  for  a  very  learned  investigation  of  this  word 
Elohim.  But  I  insist,  however,  that  it  should  be  so  ren- 
dered. "  It  makes  more  Gods  than  one,*'  but  our  learned 
author  does  not  think  so.  My  brother  thinks  where  God 
speaks  thus,  he  says  that  the  personal  pronoun  "I" 
should  be  changed  to  **  we."  Xow  this  language  does 
occur,  and  it  is  strange,  that  if  he  has  read  the  first  chap- 
ter of  Genesis,  he  has  not  noticed  where  it  is  said,  **  let  us 
make  man;'"  the  projxjsition  is  the  result  of  his  own 
choice.  He  says  tliat  the  literary  woi^d  and  the  litera- 
ture of  the  world  is  on  my  side,  and  he  expresses  an 
anxiety  that  it  should  be  on  his.  I  have  been  waiting 
for  and  expecting  an  authority  of  his  own,  on  the  Divinity ; 
he  makes  reference  to  none.  He  claims  Dr.  Locke  as  one 
of  their  authorities,  but  does  not  seem  to  rely  much  uix)n 
him,  because  he  thinks  it  would  be  ex  parte  testimony. 
It  would  be  interesting  to  have  some  authorities,  at  least, 
from  his  party.  He  is  quoting  orthodox  authors,  in 
which  there  seems  to  be  confirmation  of  his  views.  They 
must  be  garbled  statements  of  the  authors'  meaning,  if 
taken  from  authors  whose  opinions — 

SuMMEEBELL. — I  ask  if  it  is  wrong  to  quote  his  authors, 
and  if  the  quotations  I  have  given  have  been  garbled  ? 
I  appeal  to  the  Moderatoi-s. 

Flood. — I  did  not  say  that  he  garbled  them :  but  it 
would  be  noticed,  in  making  quotations  from  Trinitarian 
authors,  that  they  must  be  garbled  or  imperfect  views  of 
the  author. 

MoDERATOKS. — Our  opiuiou,  in  regard  to  this  matter, 
is  that  brother  Summerbell  has  a  perfect  right,  in  all 
conscience,  to  select  Trinitarian  authors,  and  prove  his 
position.  At  the  same  time,  as  these  authors  are  ac- 
knowledged Trinitarians,  if  they  prove  anything  else 
but  the  Trinity,  these  extracts  must  be  taken  out  of  their 
regular  course. 

SuMMEEBELL. — I  quotc  them  to  explain  certain  texts,  to 
show  that  they  have  given  up  those  texts. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


205 


Moderators. — I  should  like  to  remark,  as  Elder  Sum- 
merbell  is  placed  in  the  affirmative,  he  has  a  right  to 
introduce  any  testhnony  he  thinks  proper,  to  sustain  his 
proposition,  namely,  that  the  creed  of  his  opponent  is 
unscriptural ;  hence,  we  decide,  that  he  has  a  right  to  in- 
troduce this  testimony. 

Flood. — I  have  not  yet  disputed  Mr.  SummerbelPs 
right  to  introduce  these  texts ;  I  have  never  once  ques- 
tioned his  right. 

Moderators. — Perhaps  it  would  be  as  well  to  introduce 
a  word  equally  strong,  but  not  quite  so  harsh. 

Flood. — Is"  not  the  word  garbled  a  correct  word,  ex- 
pressing a  pervei'sion  of  the  author's  meaning  ? 

SuMMERBELL. — He,  says  my  brother,  garbled ;  and  if  he 
means  what  he  says  let  him  prove  it. 

Flood. — I  presume  my  brother  felt  he  had  need  of 
this,  but  I  am  not  disconcerted,  hence  I  shall  proceed 
with  the  argument ;  I  shall  quote  an  authority  upon  which 
I  founded  my  remarks,  as  to  the  begetting  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  "And  the  angel  answered  and  said  unto 
her,  the  power  of  the  Ilighest,"  &c.  Now  my  friend  ad- 
mits, in  his  whole  argument,  that  the  highest  is  God. 
lie  states  that  I  denied  the  Son  of  God  was  eternal. 
Now  I  wish  my  brother  would  not  misrepresent  me.  I 
now  state  emphatically,  I  never  denied  any  such  thing ; 
I  have  asserted,  time  and  again,  that  the  Son  of  God  was 
eternal ;  but  it  was  improper  to  say  that  he  was  the  eter- 
nal Son  of  God ;  •  but  how  can  you  reconcile  them  ?  He 
existed  not  as  the  Son,  but  existed  in  the  capacity  of 
the  Word  or  Logos,  and  was  designated  as  the  Son  of 
God,  begotten  of  the  Father ;  hence  he  is  eternal  in  his 
existence  as  God ;  but  not  the  eternal  Son  of  God ;  yet  the 
Son  of  God  is  eternal,  if  man  as  begotten  of  the  Father  is 
eternal.  All  the  quibbling  that  may  be  had  over  this,  I 
am  willing  that  my  brother  should  have  the  benefit  of  it, 
80  long  as  his  book  shall  live  and  liourish  among  the  litera- 
ture of  the  world ;  and  it  is  hoped  it  may  flourish  for  my 


206 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITT. 


sake.  He  has  insisted  again  and  again,  that  I  am  not 
coming  up  with  him — I  conceived  myself  to  be  far  in  ad- 
vance ;  but  he  shouts,  Come  on  !  Come  on  !  This  would 
be  encouraging  to  a  man  who  was  about  to  faint  by  the 
way — who  was  enfeebled  under  the  strokes  of  the  enemy — 
to  assume  a  good  feeling  toward  him,  to  one  wliom  I  had 
rendered  infirm,  to  say,  Come  on.  Well  now,  under  all 
of  these  considerations  your  humble  servant  has  not  yet 
been  able  to  make  the  discovery.  I  thought  he  was  con- 
scious that  I  was  somewhere  in  his  neighborhood  with  my 
gloves  ofi*,  and  I  was  therefore  surprised  at  his  invitation 
to  "Come  on."  I  am  already  on,  and  I  calculate  to  try, 
with  the  blessing  of  God,  to  he  on  all  the  time.  Two  or 
three  passages  I  shall  pass,  and  notice  some  other  points 
to  which  he  has  invited  attention  ;  the  first  is  that  which 
relates  to  the  knowledge  of  Christ  being  limited,  "Of 
that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,"  &c. 

We  will  give  the  brother  a  few  references :  Isaiah  ii,  2 ; 
Matt,  ix,  4  ;  xii,  25  ;  Luke  ix,  47  ;  Mark  ii,  8 ;  Luke  vii, 
39,  40  ;  John  ii,  24,  25  ;  vi,  64  ;  xiv ;  Acts  i,  24  ;  1  Cor. 
iv,  5  ;  Heb.  iv,  12  ;  Kev.  xix,  15 ;  ii,  23;  Luke  ii,  40 ; 
Col.  ii,  3. 

We  will  now  quote  first,  John  v,  20,  "  And  we  know 
that  the  Son  of  God  is  come  and  hath  given  us  an  under- 
standing, that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true ;  and  we 
are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ ;  this 
is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life,"  in  support  of  the  truth, 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  true  God.  You  recollect  yester- 
day, this  subject  was  addi^ssed  to  our  consideration,  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  the  true  God  ;  I  will  quote  here  the  lan- 
guage of  Clarke  on  this  passage. 

Clarke,  1  John  v,  20,  "  And  we  know  that  the  Son  of 
God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding  that 
we  may  know  him  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  him  that 
is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true 
God  and  eternal  life."  ("  We  hioio  that  the  Son  of  God 
is  come^')  in  the  flesh,  and  has  made  his  soul  an  offering 
for  sin,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  a  more 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


207 


eminent  degree  of  light  than  we  ever  enjoyed  before,  for 
as  he  lay  in  the  bosoin  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared 
him  unto  us,  and  he  hath  beside  given  us  a  spiritual  un- 
dei-standing,  that  we  may  know  him  who  is  true,  even 
the  true  God,  and  get  eternal  life  from  him  through  his 
Son,  in  whom  we  are  by  faith,  as  the  branches  in  the 
vine,  deriving  all  our  knowledge,  light,  life,  love  and 
fruitfulness  from  him.  And  it  is  through  this  revelation 
of  Jesus,  that  we  know  the  ever  blessed  and  glorious 
Trinity,  and  the  Trinity  Father,  Word  and  Holy  Ghost, 
in  the  eternal  undivided  unity  of  the  ineffable  Godhead." 

This  language  of  Clarke  will  hardly  admit,  that  if  he 
were  an  honest  man,  that  he  could  distinctly  give  counte- 
nance to  a  doctrine  that  would  contradict  it,  and  Dr. 
Clarke  nowhere  intended  to  give  countenance  to  that 
which  would  support  the  contrary  doctrine.  Tlie  lan- 
guage of  John,  here,  is  so  pointed  and  clear,  it  will  not 
possibly  admit  of  a  misunderstanding,  "  We  know  him, 
and  he  is  true — this  is  the  trae  God,"  &c.  Now  Christ 
declared  to  his  disciples,  that  he  would  give  unto  them 
eternal  life,  and  promises  that  he  will  be  to  them  the 
author  of  eternal  life.  John  vi,  27,  "  Labor  not  for  the 
meat  that  perisheth,"  (fee.  It  is  by  right  of  his  authority 
to  confer  eternal  life  upon  his  servants.  My  brother 
quotes  several  passages,  Eccles.  ii,  12  ;  Isaiah  i,  3  ;  ix, 
6,  and  I  really  was  surprised  when  my  good  brother  di- 
rected his  attention  to  Isaiah  ix,  6,  "  his  name  shall  be 
called  God,-'  &c.;  and  then  had  he  made  a  quotation 
showing  the  power  and  authority  with  which  he  was  in- 
vested, as  the  supreme  almighty  ruler  of  universal  em- 
pire ;  and  if  he  be,  it  is  his  right,  as  self-existing  and 
eternal  God,  to  rule. 

My  brother,  by  conferring  almighty  power  upon  the  Son, 
and  claiming  that  it  is  not  original,  does  he  know  that  it 
is  communicated  from  its  original  author,  and  the  original 
author  thereby  divests  himself  of  omnipotence,  and  ceases 
to  possess  it,  he  subjects  himself  to  the  will  of  him  by 
whom  this  almighty  power  was  conferred ;  and  such  will 


208 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


be  the  end  and  conclusion  drawn  from  the  premises,  in 
whichever  light  my  brother  may  see  proper  to  place  it  ? 
Child  born  the  Son  of  God  !  I  am  sorry  the  whole  world 
has  not  learned  this  truth.  His  name  shall  be  called 
Wonderful ;  therefore  his  name  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  God.  And  now  I  prove  from  the  authority  of  Isaiah, 
that  he  shall  be  called  not  only  the  Son  of  God,  but  that 
every  attestation  is  given  of  his  power  and  Godhead, 
the  Wonderful  Counselor,  the  Mighty  God ;  here  is  a 
reference  to  his  almighty  power,  as  God  ;  this  same  is  the 
child  born,  the  Son  of  God. 

When  such  deeply  interesting  events  take  place,  for 
the  benevolent  purpose  of  the  redemption  of  our  race,  it 
is  not  wonderful  that  a  strange  phenomenon  should 
appear  in  the  heavens ;  that  a  new  star  should  be  seen, 
and  attract  the  attention  of  the  wise  men,  devoted  to  the 
important  purpose  of  a  light  to  point  out  to  them  the 
place  where  the  young  child  was,  and  when  it  came  to 
the  spot,  it  reverently  paused  in  the  heavens  above,  and 
pointed  out  the  resting-place  of  the  babe,  the  promised 
Messiah,  the  redeeming  God  of  our  perishing  world :  that 
it  should,  by  this  act,  point  to  him,  was  but  befitting  the 
important  occasion ;  ere  the  instant  reverence  inspired 
the  mind  with  devotion  for  this  strange  personage, 
gifts  were  poured  out,  and  acts  of  devotion  joined  in 
announcing  with  the  songs  of  angels,  his  introduction 
as  the  Redeemer  of  man,  for  they  sang  "  Glory  to  God, 
in  the  highest,  on  earth,  peace  and  good-will  to  men." 
Thanks  be  to  God,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
for  this  divine  intelligence.  Unto  you  is  born  this  day, 
in  the  city  of  David,  a  Christ ;  how  shall  he  do  it — by 
the  power  of  Michael,  Gabriel,  by  the  power  of  man  ?  No! 
He  shall  lay  down  the  price  of  redemption  and  redeem 
man ;  it  is  the  price  of  a  perfect  human  nature,  united  with 
the  power  of  the  omnipotent ;  he  shall  redeem  men  by  price 
and  by  power  ;  the  captain  of  our  salvation  has  appeared, 
and  become  a  sacrifice  unto  the  law  of  ceremonies  for 
righteousness ;  and  hence,  we  have  pointed  out  this  event 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


209 


referred  to  by  Isaiah  ;  God  says,  when  he  bringeth  his  first 
begotten  into  the  world,  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship 
him.  I  say,  let  all  the  earth  worship  him,  for  unto  him 
shall  ever}^  knee  bow,  and  tongue  confess,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  the  Father. 

Mr.  Summekbell's  Fourteenth  address : 

Mr.  Summerbell  said,  I  like  the  closing  remarks  of  my 
brother's  speech,  just  as  well  as  he,  and  if  we  were  at  a 
revival  meeting,  I  think  that  I  would  like  them  still 
better.  However,  1  can  but  briefly  notice  it.  I  like 
these  good  religious  addresses ;  these  expressions  of  pure, 
and  undefiled  religion.  I  feel  good  under  them.  I  want 
my  brother  ever  to  enjoy  this  spirit,  and  never  to  get  out 
of  the  way.  I  rejoice  that  ours  is  a  religion  of  the  heart, 
as  well  as  the  head. 

He  said  that  Jesus  paid  the  price  of  our  redemption.  I 
ask  to  whom  did  he  pay  this  price  ?  Was  it  to  God  ? 
So  he  seems  to  intimate.  But  I  thought  that  he  came  to 
redeem  us  TO  God,  not  from  God.  My  brother  is  con- 
stantly relying  on  Trinitarians  to  prove  his  theory.  Now, 
what  would  you  think  of  me,  if  1  should  gravely  attempt 
to  pi'ove  my  position  right,  by  Kincaid  or  some  Unita- 
rian authority  {  Yet,  he  objects  to  my  using  his  authors 
for  proof;  and  says,  that  he  does  not  like  my  calling 
witnesses  from  his  side  of  the  house.  Do  you  not  see 
that  he  accuses  me  wrongfully  ?  Who  can  be  better  tes- 
timony for  me,  than  my  brother's  own  witnesses  ?  They 
are  my  authority,  and  they  are  real  authority.  But  he 
says  that  I  read  only  a  part ;  but  how  could  I  read  their 
whole  works  here  ?  It  would  take  me  seven  years  to 
read  all  that  they  say  on  my  side.  Let  my  brother  read 
the  rest.  He  says  that  it  would  be  interesting  to  have 
some  authors  on  my  side.  I  have  very  much  wondered 
that  he  had  not,  and  more,  at  his  bringing  such  piles  of 
books  here,  as  he  has  done,  day  after  day,  and  all  Tri- 
nitarian !  I  wish  he  would  bring  some  of  our  authors, 
Eusebius,  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  John  Locke,  Milton,  and 
18 


210 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


Others.  His  Trinitarian  anthers  are  no  authority  on  his 
side  in  this  discussion ;  but  they  are  good  for  me,  for 
when  they  give  up  a  text,  we  know  that  it  is  because  it 
cannot  be  made  to  support  the  Trinity.  My  brother 
seems  to  think  that  God  has  no  power  beyond  the  bounds 
of  heaven  and  earth  ;  but  I  think  that  his  power  extends 
everywhere.  I  cannot  limit  omnipotence.  God  could 
create  ten  thousand  worlds,  amid  tlie  outer  darkness,  in 
the  far  off  and  uninhabited  regions  of  infinite  space, 
where  the  remotest  ray  of  the  most  distant  star  has  never 
penetrated,  nor  the  eccentric  comet  ever  visited ;  and 
people  them  with  other  races  of  intelligences,  and  light 
them  up  with  other  suns.  My  brother's  ideas  of  infinity 
resemble  those  of  a  child,  who  supposes  a  mile  an  infi- 
nite distance,  because  it  is  a  good  way,  and  the  distant 
hill  top,  the  end  of  the  world.  There  is  power  outside 
of  heaven  and  earth.  But  if  Jesus  was  invested  with  all 
power,  did  not  some  one  give  it  to  him  ?  That  one  is 
the  supreme  God,  of  whom  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  xv,  "  HE 
hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet.  But  when  he  saith, 
all  things  are  put  under  him,  it  is  manifest  that  HE  is 
excepted,  which  did  put  all  things  under  him.  And 
when  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the 
Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto  Ilim^  that  put  all  things 
under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  My  brother 
quotes  1  John  v,  20,  "And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God 
is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we 
may  know  him  that  is  true ;  and  we  are  in  him  that  is 
true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true 
God  and  eternal  life,"  and  quotes  Clarke  to  show  that 
Christ  is  this  true  God,  as  though  Clarke  was  authority 
against  me.  He  is  none  whatever.  I  respect  his  learn- 
ing, but  he  is  not  orthodox.  Being  a  Methodist,  and 
acknowledged  by  my  brother,  he  is  authority  for  me 
against  him  ;  but  none  against  me.  Clarke  is  not  my 
interpreter.  Macknight  is  better  authority  on  this  text, 
for  though  he  may  not  be  so  learned  in  oriental  literature, 
yet  he  was  a  better  classical  scholar,  and  more  truly 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


211 


orthodox.  And  Macknigbt  agrees  with  me,  that  true  God 
refers  to  God,  not  to  the  Son.  He  says,  (giving  the 
opinion  of  others  approvingly) :  "  If  the  apostle  by  outos 
means  Jesus  Christ,  he  maketh  him  the  true  God,  not- 
withstanding, in  the  sentence  which  immediately  precedes 
oxdos^  he  distinguishes  the  true  one  from  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ."  Also,  now,  although  our  translators  have  de- 
stroyed that  distinction,  and  have  made  Jesus  Christ  the 
true  God,  by  inserting  the  word  even^  &c.,  they  have  in- 
serted that  word,  without  the  authority  of  any  ancient 
MS.,  &c."  John  says  that  Jesus  has  given  us  the  under- 
standing, that  we  might  know  the  only  true  God.  This 
understanding  will  be  found  John  xvii,  1-3,  "These 
words  spake  Jesus,  and  lifted  up  his  eyes  to  heaven,  and 
said,  Father,  the  hour  is  come,  glorify  thy  Son,  that  thy 
Son  may  also  glorify  thee.  As  thou  hast  given  him 
power  over  all  flesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to 
as  many  as  thou  hast  given  him ;  and  this  is  life  eternal, 
that  they  might  know  THEE,  the  ONLY  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent !"  Here  the  Son,  who 
had  glory  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was,  says  that 
his  Father  in  one  person  is  the  only  true  God. 

He  quotes  several  texts  to  show  that  Jesus  knew  the 
day  and  the  hour  of  the  end  of  the  world,  which  he  said, 
he  did  not  know.  Mark  xiii,  32.  I  must  believe  Jesus. 
I  could  not  feel  that  I  honored  Jesus,  if  I  did  not  believe 
him,  and  I  do  want  to  honor  him.  He  acknowledges 
that  he  does  not  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  eternal  Son  of 
God !  but  that  the  human  nature  was  the  Son ;  but  let 
that  pass.  He  asserts  that  the  Holy  Ghost  begat  Christ, 
and  that  tlie  Father  begat  him.  He  thus  destroys  his 
own  theory,  and  proves  that  two  persons  begat  Jesus  of 
the  Virgin,  and  that  he  had  two  fathers  ;  he  cannot  cast 
it  ofi*  the  difficulty  is  in  the  theory  of  the  Trinity.  The 
first  person  and  the  last  person  in  the  Trinity,  both  begat 
the  second  person  in  the  Trinity.  So  the  third  person  in 
the  Trinity,  is  the  Father  of  Christ.  True,  Luke  says 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  begat  Christ,  but  Luke  did  not 
believe  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  a  person.    Luke  was 


212 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


no  Trinitarian.  We  believe  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
the  power  of  the  Highest,  which  overshadowed  the  Virgin, 
(Luke  i,  35),  and  not  a  distinct  person. 

I  now  desire  yet,  to  present  you  with  about  one  hundred 
texts  from  Scripture,  in  proof  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of 
God,  which  I  want  my  brother  to  explain.  He  has  tried 
similar  texts  and  failed,  but  I  hope  he  will  try  these. 

Luke  ii,  49,  "  I  must  be  about  my  Father's  business." 

Matt,  xi,  25,  "  I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven 
and  earth." 

Matt,  xi,  27,  "  All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my 
Father ;  and  no  man  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father/' 

Luke  xxii,  42,  "  Father,  if  thou  be  willing,  remove  this 
cup  from  me;  nevertheless,  not  my  will,  but  thine  be 
done." 

John  vi,  57,  "  I  live  by  the  Father."  Surely  this  is 
not  self-existence  ? 

John  XV,  1,  "I  am  the  ti'ue  vine,  and  my  Father  is 
the  husbandman." 

Matt.  XX,  23,  "Not  mine  to  give,  but  it  shall  be  given 
to  them  for  whom  it  is  prepared  of  my  Father." 

Matt.  XX vi,  53,  "  Thinkest  thou  that  I  can  not  pray  to 
my  Father  ?" 

John  V,  43,  "  I  am  come  in  my  Father's  name,  and  ye 
receive  me  not." 

John  viii,  28,  "  As  my  Father  hath  taught  me,  I  speak 
these  things." 

John  viii,  38,  "  I  speak  that  which  I  have  seen  with 
my  Father," 

John  viii,  28,  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  L" 

John  XX,  17,  "  I  ascend  to  my  Father  and  to  your 
Father,  to  my  God  and  to  your  God." 

Luke  i,  32,  "He  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  High- 
est."   Xot  the  Highest. 

Matt,  xvi,  16,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God." 

Mark  viii,  32,  "  Of  that  hour  knoweth  no  man — not 
the  angels — neither  the  Son,"  "but  the  Father  only." 
Matt,  xxiv,  30. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


213 


Mark  xiv,  61,  "  Thoii  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
blessed." 

John  i,  18,  "  Only  begotten  Son  who  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father." 

John  iii,  35.  "The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath 
given,"  &c.    John  v,  20. 

John  iii  36,    He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  life." 

John  iii,  36,  He  that  believeth  not  the  Son,  shall  not 
see  life." 

John  V,  19,  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself." 

John  V,  19,  "  Whatsoever  things  the  Father  doeth, 
these  doeth  the  Son." 

John  V,  21,  ''As  the  Father  quickeneth,  &c.,  so  the 
Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will." 

John  V,  22,  "  The  Father — hath  committed  all  judg- 
ment to  the  Son." 

John  V,  23,  ''That  all  men  should  honor  the  Sou,  even 
as  they  honor  the  Father." 

John  V,  23,  "  He  that  honoreth  not  the  Son,  honoreth 
not  the  Father." 

John  V,  26,  "  Father — hath  given  the  Son  to  have  life 
in  himself." 

John  vi,  40,  "  Every  one  that  seeth  the  Son  and  be- 
lieveth— hath  everlasting  life." 

John  viii,  35,  '*  Servant  abideth  not  for  ever,  but  the 
Son  abideth  for  ever." 

John  viii,  36,  "  If  the  Son  therefore  shall  make  you 
free,  you  shall  be  free  indeed." 

John  xiv,  13,  "  That  the  Father  may  be  glorified  in 
the  Son." 

1  Cor.  XV,  28,  "  Then  shall  the  Son"— not  the  human 
nature,  but  the  Son  to  whom  all  things  are  subdued — 
"deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  him  that  put  all  things  under 
him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all." 

John  V,  25,  ''  The  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the 
Son  of  God,  and  they  that  hear  shall  live." 

John  i,  19,  '•  Nathaniel  said,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God." 

Jno.  i,  34,  "John  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God." 


214 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TKINITY. 


Gal.  i,  1,  "Paul  an  apostle,  not  of  man,  neither  by 
man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ." 

Gal.  i,  11,  "  The  Gospel  preached  by  me  is  not  after 
man ;  for  I  neither  received  it  of  men,  neither  was  I 
taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Rev.  V,  3,  "  Xo  man  in  heaven,  nor  in  earth,  neither 
under  the  earth,  was  able  to  open  the  book." 

Rev.  V,  5,  "  Behold  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah 
hath  prevailed  to  open  the  book." 

Rev.  V,  7,  "  And  he  came  and  took  the  book  out  of 
the  right  hand  of  him  that  sat  upon  the  throne." 

By  these  texts  you  see,  that  Jesus  is  not  a  man,  but  a 
being  of  heaven,  whose  Father  is  God.  O,  my  friends, 
where  is  the  difficulty  of  believing  that  God  has  a  Son  ? 
"Why  can  we  not  believe  this  great  truth,  this  fundamen- 
tal truth  of  the  Christian  religion  ?  God  sent  his  Son 
for  our  salvation,  not  a  mere  man  as  good  as  Adam. 

My  brother  quotes  texts,  to  show  that  we  should  honor 
Christ,  and  that  he  has  great  power  and  glory.  Why, 
the  Lord  bless  my  brother,  we  believe  all  this.  He  can 
never  give  Christ  glOry  enough.  He  is  the  Son  of  the 
living  God.  Could  you  believe  this,  jon  could  see  his 
glory.  If  you  can  not  believe  it,  just  for  a  moment 
imagine  that  the  great  Eternal  One  lias  a  Son,  the  bright- 
ness of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person, 
who  does  all  things  to  please  the  Father  ;  by  whom,  and 
for  whom,  God  created  all  things ;  before  whom,  angels 
bow  in  worship  at  the  connnand  of  the  Father ;  and  that 
this  Son  left  the  throne  of  glory,  for  us  and  our  sal- 
vation, stooped  to  a  world  of  sin  and  sorrow,  and  died 
to  redeem  us  ;  would  you  think  that  we  could  honor  him 
enough  ?  As  our  King  we  should  obey  him ;  as  our 
Priest  we  reverence  him  ;  as  our  Saviour  we  adore  him ; 
but  not  independent  of  the  Father,  but  we  honor  the  Son 
to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  John  saw  a  door  opened 
in  heaven,  and  there,  in  the  highest,  brightest,  mansion 
in  the  universe,  where  the  bright  fields  of  eternal  day 
Bwell  with  untold  millions  of  celestial  spirits,  hosts 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


215 


rising  above  hosts,  and  legions  rising  above  legions,  there 
is  the  mansion  of  the  Deity.  The  innumerable  hosts  of 
angels  extend  around  in  the  vast  circumference.  Tlie 
white-vested  elders  upon  burnished  thrones,  shine  like 
stars  in  an  inner  circle.  The  four  living  creatures,  the 
mighty  seraphim,  with  their  unsleeping,  universal  eyes, 
and  burning  wheels,  and  lightning  velocity,  come  nearer 
the  center,  where  upon  a  great  white  throne,  whose  base 
o'ertops  the  universe,  sits  One,  whose  head  and  hairs  are 
white  like  snow;  whose  vesture  dipped  in  blood,  is  white 
and  glistering ;  whose  waist  is  girded  with  a  golden  gir- 
dle ;  whose  feet  are  as  fine  brass  burning  in  the  fire ; 
whose  countenance  is  as  the  sun  shining  in  his  strength ; 
whose  eyes  are  as  a  flame  of  fire ;  whose  voice  is  as  the 
sound  of  many  waters ;  who  holds  the  seven  stars  in  his 
right  hand ;  while  he  walks  in  the  midst  of  the  golden 
candlesticks ;  out  of  his  mouth  proceedetli  a  sharp  two- 
edged  sword  ;  upon  his  head  are  many  crowns,  and  upon 
his  thigh,  the  name  written,  KING  OF  KINGS,  AND 
LORD  OF  LORDS.  His  plastic  hand  created  the  tall- 
est angels ;  his  moulding  power  formed  the  worlds  of 
glory ;  his  precious  blood  redeems  our  race  of  sinners, 
and  his  eternal  fiat  shall  judge  the  universe.  And  yet 
this  is  not  the  first  Great  Cause  ?  This  is  the  Son  seated 
at  the  right  hand  of  the  great  eternal,  unseen,  invisible 
one,  whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can  see ;  and  when  the 
celestial  choir,  in  loud  thunders  sound  the  praise  of 
heaven,  they  sing,  "  Great  and  marvelous  are  thy  works, 
Lord  God  Almighty,  just  and  true  are  thy  ways,  thou 
King  of  saints."  My  brother,  you  may  stretch  your 
imagination  to  its  utmost  bounds,  and  you  can  never  give 
him  glory  enough.  The  high  seraphs  of  heaven  fall 
down  before  him,  and  hide  their  faces  in  his  presence ; 
then  how  shall  I  honor  him  enough,  or  love  him  enough? 
Let  us  then  praise  him  for  evermore,  with  all  our  ran- 
somed powers. 

But  my  brother  has  no  such  Son  of  God :  his  Son  of 
God  is  but  eighteen  hundred  years  old — the  "  very  man," 


216 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


not  the  pre-existent  one.  But  there  was  a  Son  of  God 
before  the  Virgin  Mary  existed. 

Psalms  ii,  7,  God  says  to  him,  "Thou  art  my  Son  :  this 
day  have  I  be.ojotten  thee ;  ask  of  me  and  I  will  give  thee 
the  heathen  for  thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  earth  for  thy  possession."  Now  this  great  power 
is  not  to  be  entrusted  to  a  mere  man,  but  to  the  pre- 
existent  Son  of  God. 

Frov.  XXX,  4,  "  Who  hath  ascended  up  into  heaven,  or 
descended  ?  who  hath  gathered  the  wind  in  his  fist  V 
"  What  is  his  name,  and  what  is  his  So7i^s  name,  if  thou 
canst  tell."  Here  we  are  taught  that  there  was  a  Son 
of  God  during  the  Old  Testament  dispensation. 

Dan.  iii,  25.  "Lo,  said  Nebuchadnezzar,  I  see  four 
men  loose,  walking  in  the  midst  of  the  fire,  and  they 
have  no  hurt ;  and  the  form  of  the  fourth  is  like  the  SON 
of  God." 

Gen.  i,  26.  "God  said,  Let  us  make  man."  And  I 
doubt  not  but  Paul  spoke  in  reference  to  this  very  agency, 
when  he  said,  Heb.  i,  1-3,  "  God,  who  in  sundry  times 
and  divers  manners,  spoke  in  times  past  unto  the  fathers 
by  the  prophets,  hath,  in  these  last  times,  spoken  unto 
us  by  his  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all  things; 
by  whom,  also,  he  made  the  worlds." 

Now,  on  my  brother's  theory,  God  could  not  have 
created  the  worlds  by  his  Son ;  for  he  thinks  that  he  had 
no  Son  until  the  miraculous  conception.  But  these  texts 
prove  that  there  was  a  Son  of  God  before  he  was  born  in 
the  flesh.  Now  let  my  brother  attack  this  difiiculty,  and 
remove  it  if  he  is  able.  Again,  Jesus  says,  "  My  father 
is  greater  than  I."  Now,  how  is  the  Father  greater  than 
the  Son,  if  the  Son  is  in  all  things  equal  ?  And  if  he 
is  not  in  all  things  equal,  then  he  is  not  absolutely  equal, 
but  only  equal  in  some  things.  Or  were  there  two 
Christs,  one  of  whom  was  equal  with  God,  and  one  of 
whom  was  not  ?  He  says,  that  there  were  two  natures, 
but  these  two  natures  are  two  beings — very  God  and 
very  man.    Two  persons,  I  the  God,  and  I  the  man. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


21T 


Two  intelligences — two  powers — two  existences;  one 
thirty  years  old,  the  other  eternal.  One  knew  all ;  the 
other  only  part.  One  could  do  all ;  the  other  could  do 
nothing  of  himself.  The  truth  is,  there  were  not  two 
persons  in  Christ,  but  one.  Christ  is  not  divided.  He  is 
one  Son  of  God.  In  the  parable  of  the  vineyard,  Mark 
xii,  6,  it  says,  that  "  having  yet,  therefore,  one  Son,  his 
well-beloved,  he  sent  him  last  unto  them,  saying,  they 
will  reverence  my  Son." 

Where  is  the  force  of  this  passage  on  my  brother's 
theory,  that  the  Son  was  not  divine  but  a  mere  creature — 
one  of  the  husbandmen  to  whom  the  Lord  of  the  vine- 
yard united  himself?  Such  is  not  the  truth.  But  Rom. 
viii,  32,  "  God  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  delivered 
him  up  for  us  all."  Oh!  my  dear  brother,  you  must 
feel  the  weight  of  these  Scriptures.  God  had  a  Son  be- 
fore the  world  was.  That  Son  had  glory  with  the  Father 
before  the  world  was.  That  Son  came  down  from  heaven, 
not  to  do  his  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  him. 
Oh  !  my  dear  friends  !  think  not  lightly  of  denying  the 
Son  of  God.  How  otten  is  faith,  on  this  point,  set  forth 
in  God's  Word.  This  is  the  foundation  of  all  our  hope. 
Oh  !  that  you  would  realize  that  it  is  a  great  thing,  that 
God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten 
Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  might  not  perish, 
but  have  everlasting  life  ;  but  there  is  no  such  display  of 
love  in  the  gift  of  a  mere  man,  or  "  very  man." 

Mr.  Flood's  Fourteenth  reply  : 

I  feel  gratified  that  I  am  still  growing  in  the  estimation 
of  my  brother.  Yesterday  he  thought  I  might  answer 
for  a  blower  and  striker ;  but  this  hour  he  would  be  willing 
to  have  me  preaching  with  him,  united  in  the  Christian 
church!  Now  that  I  have  come  to  be  regarded  and 
respected  by  my  brother  in  the  light  of  a  brother,  cer- 
tainly this  is  a  compliment  to  be  paid  one  so  humble  as 
myself. 

My  brother  says  that  he  did  not  assert  that  omnipotent 
19 


218 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TKINITT. 


power  was  delegated  to  Jesiis  Christ.  I  have  proved  that 
all  things  were  made  by  him,  and  for  him ;  whether  they 
be  things  in  heaven,  or  things  in  earth  ;  all  things  were 
made  by  him,  and  by  him  do  all  things  exist.  If  all  this 
be  true,  and  yet  he  does  not  possess  omnipotent  power, 
either  of  absolute  right,  as  his  own,  or  by  delegation,  I 
should  like  to  know  where  omnipotence  existed  ?  when 
all  things  were  created  by  him,  and  for  him,  I  should 
like  to  know  where  that  omnipotent  power  did  exist? 
Whether  they  be  thrones  or  dominions,  &c.,  all  things 
were  made  by  him,  and  for  him,  and  without  him  was  no- 
thing made  that  was  made.  If  omnipotent  energy  is  not 
exerted  in  creation,  where  is  it  ?  If  the  God  of  creation 
is  not  an  omnipotent  God,  in  what  being  shall  we  search 
for  this  absolute  perfection  ?  My  brother  wishes  it  dis- 
tinctly understood  that  that  omnipotent  power  was  God. 
Again,  if  omnipotent  power  is  not  exerted  in  Providence 
by  the  Son  of  God,  then  it  is  not  exerted  at  all :  for  by 
him  do  all  things  exist.  If  omnipotent  energy  is  not 
necessary  to  the  support  of  universal  empire — to  the 
maintenance  of  universal  existence — to  the  sustaining 
of  the  Jaws  of  nature,  in  their  endless  ramifications,  I 
want  to  know  where  omnipotent  energy  pervades  the 
universe  ?  where  is  evidence  of  it  given  ?  Yet  this 
power  is  declared  to  be  possessed  by  Jesus  Christ.  I  say 
this  brother  is  in  great  danger,  at  present,  of  annihilating 
the  delegated  God.  Yesterday  I  showed  that  both  Provi- 
dence and  Redemption  were  essential,  and  were  acknowl- 
edged in  Jesus  Christ  by  my  brother  ;  but  it  was  seen  how 
very  tenaciously  he  held  that  it  was  by  delegation ;  but 
when  this  delegated  power  could  not  sustain  itself,  either 
"  by  the  testimony  of  Revelation,  or  logical  induction," 
the  brother  has  become  alarmed — and  it  is  the  only  point 
that  he  has  abandoned — the  position  of  Christ's  omnipo- 
tence. I  find  the  essential  attributes  of  infinity,  in  the 
persons  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  not  making 
three  Gods,  as  my  brother  will  force  that  conclusion,  but 
as  constituting  the  one  true  and  living  God  of  the  Bible, 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


219 


whom  I  have  asserted  is  one  God,  not  three  Gods.  The 
God  of  Providence,  the  God  of  Kedemption,  uniting  the 
infinite  energies  of  Jehovah  in  the  several  offices  which 
the  persons  of  the  Trinity  are  represented  as  filling,  not 
increasing  the  number  of  persons,  but  identifying  their 
natures  into  one.  The  God,  Word,  or  Logos,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  as  the  almighty  agent  of  the  other  persons 
in  the  Trinity,  to  execute  the  design  of  his  glorious  un- 
dertaking, in  conjunction  with  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
What  God  the  Father  does,  God  the  Son  approves ;  for 
in  the  councils  of  the  divine  mind  in  the  Godhead,  in  the 
persons  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  there  is 
harmony,  no  division.  They  are  one  in  eveiy  essential ; 
one  God,  couiposed  of  three  persons;  hence  the  brother 
will  not  think  it  worth  while  to  run  over  the  ground 
agatTi. 

Respecting  the  omnipotence  of  Jesus  Christ  —  the 
almighty  power  of  Jesus  Christ — my  brother  quotes  a** 
number  of  passages,  all  of  which  he  wishes  me  to  notice : 
"  I  have  power  to  lay  down  my  life,"  &c.,  and  wishes  to 
know  if  God  had  power  to  lay  his  life  down.  I  assert 
that  all  life  emanates  from  God.  He  is  the  author  of  all 
life,  in  all  worlds  the  source  of  life,  and  hence  he  uses 
this  language :  "  I  have  power  to  lay  down  my  life," 
the  life  of  the  perfect  human  nature,  which  was  united 
and  identified  with  the  Deity — a  union  most  mysterious 
to  the  world,  and  ever  to  remain  so.  I  have  power 
for  the  time  being  to  lay  this  life  down.  I  have  asserted 
that  the  Divine  nature  could  not  die,  but  a  perfect  human 
nature,  identified  with  the  God,  who  is  very  God,  and 
very  man,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  human  nature 
did  die,  and  it  was  this  life  to  which  Christ  alluded,  when 
he  said,  "  I  have  power  to  lay  down  my  life."  Again, 
when  he  said,  "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I 
will  build  it  up  again."  It  is  the  same  life  of  which  he 
says  he  has  power  to  lay  down.  The  Evangelist  says,  he 
refers  to  the  temple  of  his  body,  and  not  to  the  templo 
of  Jerusalem.      Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  eoul  in  hell," 


220 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


was  fully  redeemed  in  the  resun-ection  of  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ  from  the  grave,  on  the  third  morning.  Had 
he  not  possessed  infinite  power,  what  assurance  could  the 
disciples  have  had  that  he  would  do  as  he  said  ?  They 
recognized  the  true  God  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  hence  they  had  faith  that  his  promises  would  be 
fulfilled,  though  some  doubted  for  the  time,  as  my  brother 
doubts,  yet  they  felt  that  all  was  not  lost.  The  faith  of 
the  women  who  came  to  his  tomb,  demonstrated  that  the 
promise  which  had  been  made,  was  to  be  fulfilled  ;  they 
approached  the  grave's  mouth,  an  angel  descended  from 
heaven,  removed  the  stone,  that  it  should  ofifer  no  seem- 
ing barrier  to  the  completeness  of  his  triumph,  when  he 
destroyed  the  powers  of  darkness,  and  conquered  the  last 
enemy,  that  through  him  we  might  also  be  made  partak- 
*  ers  of  immortal  life.  We  look  upon  this  as  the  ground 
of  our  hope  of  immortal  destiny.  We  know  that  he  was 
of  truly  celestial,  as  he  was  of  mortal  origin,  and  we  are 
as  truly  representatives  of  the  worlds  of  matter  and  of 
mind,  and  we  know  that  that  which  pertains  to  the  world 
of  matter  must  be  subject  to  decomposition,  and  that  the 
soul,  which  is  indestructible,  will  rise  again  to  accomplish 
our  final  triumph. 

The  evidence  of  Jesus'  rising  is  so  clear — the  angels 
were  there :  "  Why  seek  ye  the  living  among  the  dead  ? 
He  is  not  here,  he  is  risen ;  why  came  ye  here  to  seek 
him  ?  "  After  his  resurrection  he  made  himself  known 
to  Mary,  and  to  the  two  disciples,  and  was  subsequently 
seen  by  more  than  five  hundred  brethren  ;  and  he  also 
mingled  with  his  disciples,  and  instructed  them  on  the 
nature  and  extent  of  his  glorious  kingdom,  and  led  them 
out  to  Bethany,  where,  upon  an  eminence  commanding 
a  view  of  the  ethereal  heavens,  he  lifted  up  his  hands 
and  blessed  them  ;  and  Luke  informs  us  that  he  was  in 
the  act  of  blessing  them,  when  he  was  parted  from  them, 
and  w^as  carried  up  into  heaven.  As  they  stood  gazing, 
angels  appeared  and  gave  them  assurance  that  this  was 
a  final  triumph.   "  Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son  of  God 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


221 


coining  in  tlie  clouds,"  &c.  "  In  like  manner  as  ye  saw 
this  Jesus  ascend  into  heaven,  so  shall  he  also  come 
down." 

These  assurances,  sir,  are  the  ground  of  hope  to  the 
Christian  world,  that  Christ  will  also  descend.  And  what 
for  ?  To  raise  to  life  again  his  sleeping  dead,  "  for  those 
who  sleep  in  Jesus  shall  God  bring  with  him."  We 
console  ourselves  with  the  reflection  of  the  essential  Di- 
vinity of  Jesus  Christ.  My  exhortation,  as  before,  is, 
adhere  to  this  great  doctrine,  more  especially  with  regard 
to  the  equality  of  Jesus  Christ  with  the  Father.  This  is 
the  doctrine  to  which  I  would  have  you  adhere,  and  I 
would  urge  that  again,  especially  as  it  is  the  gi'ound  of 
your  future,  hopes  and  ultimate  triumph.  There  is  no 
hope  of  immortality  unless  it  be  derived  and  obtained 
from  God,  for  he  only  possesses  absolute  immortality  ; 
hence,  if  we  partake  of  his  nature,  it  must  be  through 
God,  and  we  receive  it  by  power  of  God,  through  Jesus 
Christ.  Hence,  when  time  shall  be  no  more ;  when 
Christ  shall  come  the  second  time;  when  the  Lion  of 
the  tribe  of  Judah  shall  appear  in  his  godlike  char- 
acter, this  we  trust  and  believe :  that  he  will  descend  into 
the  grave  of  sleeping  humanity,  and  lift  up  those  who 
trusted  and  confided  in  him,  and  these  shall  have  part  in 
the  first  resurrection.  And  it  is  upon  this  ground,  that 
the  doctrines  of  future  and  endless  retribution  are  predi- 
cated, lie  is  the  Judge,  possessing  the  essential  attri- 
butes of  the  Divine  mind ;  to  be  a  perfect  judge,  he  must 
have  a  perfect  knowledge.  He  must  possess  omniscience 
that  he  may  b.e  a  perfect  judge,  that  he  may  understand 
all  the  various  relations  men  sustain  to  each  other,  and 
to  God.  But  I  have  not  been  able  to  draw  from  my 
opponent,  what  Jesus  Christ  is  to  him,  although  he  repre- 
sents him,  in  a  very  eloquent  manner,  as  sitting  at  the 
right  hand  of  God.  Heaven  is  represented  as  God's 
throne,  and  earth  his  footstool ;  but  if  we  literalize  these 
passages,  it  is  passing  strange  that  we  have  not  come  in 
contact  with  the  Divine  person,  if  he  possesses  a  phys- 


222 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITT. 


ical  body ;  the  one  is  just  as  likely  to  be  regarded  as  a 
physical  manifestation  as  the  other.  I  reverently  speak, 
when  1  speak  of  Jehovah,  whether  I  adore  him  under 
one,  or  the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  under  which 
his  infinite  perfections  are  represented  ;  whether  Father, 
Son,  or  Holy  Ghost ;  for  the  title  of  Jehovah,  which 
belongs  to  God  only,  is  given  indiscriminately  to  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit.  This  title  is  given  to  Jesus  in 
one  place  alone ;  hence,  when  I  speak  of  the  Son,  my 
brother  impeaches  us  with  not  making  the  Son  equal  with 
the  Father.  '*  I  honor  the  Son,  even  as  I  honor  the 
Father."  "What  does  this  equalifying  phrase  signify  ? 
Does  it  signify  that  the  Father  is  a  character  eternal,  an 
omnipotent,  omnipresent,  and  omniscient  God,  and  that 
Jesus,  an  object  of  worship,  possesses  none  of  these  attri- 
butes ?  is  not  omnipotent,  neither  by  inheritance  nor  dele- 
gation ?  is  not  omniscient  ?  is  not  omnipresent  ?  can  not 
be  everywhere  ?  is  not  eternal  ?  therefore,  did  not  exist 
in  the  morning  of  eternity,  nor  from  all  eternity.  He  did 
not  so  exist,  yet  he  is  entitled  to  all  praise  and  thanks- 
giving, and  my  brother  quoted  the  language  of  Revela- 
tion, which  ascribes  life,  honor,  and  glory  to  him,  for 
ever  and  ever  ;  to  which  I  responded  a  hearty  amen.  If 
the  apostle  says  unto  him  be  Might,  let  all  say  amen,  let 
angels  and  unborn  seraphs  say  amen,  and  let  men  that 
live  upon  this  earth,  and  bow  tlie  knee  to  one  God,  the 
Father,  respond  one  hearty  amen  !  Here,  then,  we  have 
the  doctrine  of  the  infinity  of  Jesus  Christ ;  Jesus  Christ 
worthy  to  be  praised  through  ail  ages,  world  without  end. 
My  brothers  closing  exhortation  I  approve.  TTe  shall 
have  a  happy  conclusion,  I  trust,  to  this  discussion,  for 
I  will  say,  not  that  /  have  a  desire  to  triumph,  but  for 
the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  that  I  feel  the  inspiration  of 
all  these  heavenly  truths  as  I  give  them  to  you.  I  advise 
my  good  friends,  the  Reporters,  that  they  may  look  out 
for  manifestations  of  my  warmth  :  it  is  my  nature.  I 
hope  they  will  excuse  my  remarks.  1  have  to  state  dis- 
tinctly, that  no  proposition  has  been  given  up  by  me. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


223 


"What  success  mj  brother  has  had,  will  be  judged  of, 
when  the  work  comes  out  amply  reviewed.  Christ  is 
God,  equal  with  the  Father  in  his  Divine  nature,  in 
substance,  power,  glory,  and  eternity  ;  and  in  the  unity 
of  the  Godhead  there  are  tlu'ee  persons — the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost ;  the  one  God  of  Christians,  the  one 
God  of  the  Bible.  This  point,  I  think,  will  be  made 
suflSciently  clear.  I  asserted  that  the  highest  seraph  that 
blazes  before  the  throne  of  God,  can  only  be  in  one  place 
at  the  same  time ;  but  Christ  says,  where  two  or  three 
ai*e  gathered  together,  there  I  am  in  their  midst.  ]N"ow, 
if  he  be  in  more  than  one  place  at  the  same  time,  he  is 
capable  of  being  in  every  place.  The  omnipresence  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  therefore  sustained  beyond  all  cavil. 

Mr.  Su>lmekbell's  Fifteenth  address : 

Kind  Friends — I  have  alluded  to  several  authors  which 
I  should  have  read,  had  my  brother  challenged  the  quo- 
tations. There  are  some,  however,  which  I  desire  to 
read  extracts  from,  touching  the  question  under  discus- 
sion, and  shall  proceed  to  do  so  at  this  time. 

I  wish  it  ever  to  be  remembered,  that  I  have  not,  like 
my  brother,  endeavored  to  prove  my  position  by  authori- 
ties on  my  own  side  of  the  question  ;  but  from  most 
unquestionable  Trinitarians;  men  whose  interests,  pre- 
judices, and  popularity,  would  all  forbid  any  bias  in  my 
favor. 

I  will  now  read  from  the  highest  authority,  to  show 
that  as  late  as  the  year  A.  D.  380,  whether  or  not  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  God  ;  and  I  want  my  brother  to  explain, 
how  those  who  are  now  claimed  as  the  most  eminent 
Trinitarians  of  the  fourth  century,  could  be  so,  and  yet 
not  be  decided  whether  the  Son  was  self-existent,  or  the 
Holy  Ghost  a  creature.  This  being  the  case,  it  could 
hardly  bo  that  the  church  of  which  they  were  the  leading- 
men,  was  Trinitarian. 

Neandek,  Vol.  ii,  p.  418.  "It  is  remarkable,  that  at 
the  Nicene  council  the  doctrine  concerning  the  Holy 


224 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


Spirit,  was  expressed  only  in  very  vague  and  general 
terras,  but  this  point  possessed,  as  yet,  no  very  great  inte- 
rest in  doctrinal  polemics,  and  many  who  saw  their  way 
clear  to  subscribe  to  the  Homoousion,  as  it  respected  the 
Son  of  God,  would  have  scrupled  to  extend  this  same 
determination  also  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  unity  of  the 
Christian  consciousness  of  God  had  here  so  little  permea- 
ted as  yet,  the  apprehension  of  the  idea,  that  Gregory  of 
Xazianzen  could  still  say,  in  the  year  3S0,  some  of  our 
theologians  consider  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  a  mode  of  the 
Divine  Agency,  (as,  for  instance,  Lactantius  had  done  in 
a  preceding  period.)  others  a  creature  of  God,  others  God 
himself.  Others  say,  they  do  not  know,  themselves,  which 
of  the  two  opinions  they  ought  to  adopt,  out  of  reverence 
for  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  have  not  clearly  explained 
this  point." 

This  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Trinity  had  not  yet, 
received  its  finishing  touch.  I  told  my  brother  that 
I  had  the  highest  Trinitarian  authority  for  asserting  that 
the  Trinity  was  not  at  this  period  a  doctrine  of  the 
church. 

Neander  positively  says,  Yol.  i,  pp.  571 — 573,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  does  not  belong  to  the  funda- 
mental articles  of  the  Christian  faith ;  but  that  it  did, 
from  the  beginning,  constitute  the  fundamental  conscious- 
ness of  the  Catholic  chm'ch,  and  referring  to  the  texts 
usually  quoted  to  support  it  as  a  Bible  doctrine,  shows 
that  some  of  tliem  are  forged,  and  that  others  of  them 
are  wrested  from  their  true  meaning. 

But  the  question  arises,  how  could  this  man  be  a  Trin- 
itarian ?  It  is  very  easy  to  live  in  a  Trinitarian  church. 
If  a  man  only  consents  that  he  believes  the  Trinity,  he 
may  explain  it  as  he  pleases.  My  brother  misquoted  the 
passage  1  Tim.  i,  17.  It  does  not  read  "  The  only  wise 
God  our  Saviour  ;  "  but  "  Xow  unto  the  King  Eternal, 
Immortal,  Invisible,  (not  the  visible  Christ,  but)  the  only 
wise  God,  be  honor  and  glory  for  ever  and  ever.''  Here, 
the  only  wise  God  is  distinguished  from  Jesus  Christ,  as 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


225 


invisible  and  immortal.  I  want  my  brother  to  remember, 
that  this  invisible  One  is  the  ojily  wise  God.  My  brother 
will  see,  by  refemng  to  the  first  verse,  that  God  is  called 
our  Saviour  in  connection  with  Jesus  Christ.  I  will  refer 
my  brother  to  Clarke,  on  this  passage. 

Clarke,  1  Tim.  xvii,  "  '  Xow  unto  the  King  Eternal, 
Immortal,  Invisible,  the  only  wise  God,  be  honor  and 
glory  for  ever  and  ever,  amen.'  {Xow  unto  the  King 
Eternal.)  This  burst  of  thanksgiving  and  gratitude  to 
God,  naturally  arose  from  the  subject  then  nnder  his  pen 
and  eye.  God  has  most  wondrously  manifested  his 
mercy  in  this  beginning  of  the  Gospel,  by  saving  me  and 
making  me  a  pattern  to  all  them  that  shall  hereafter 
believe  on  Christ." 

Thus,  my  brother's  own  authorities  apply  his  proof- 
text  to  the  Father. 

There  is  a  text  which  says,  '*  To  the  only  wise  God 
our  Saviour."  My  brother  may  find  it  in  Jude,  ver.  25, 
but  it  has  no  reference  to  Jesus  Christ,  but  to  God,  who 
saves  us  by  his  Son.  On  this  passage  I  will  read  Dr. 
Macknight,  high  Presbyterian  authority,  superior  to 
Clarke,  in  all  but  oriental  learning,  and  consequently, 
superior  here. 

Macknight  translates  Jude  i,  25,  as  follows:  "To  the 
wise  God  alone,  our  Saviour,  be  gloiy  and  majesty, 
strength  and  right,  both  now  and  throughout  all  ages, 
amen."  He  comments  thus:  *'To  the  wise  God  alone, 
that  this  is  the  true  translation,  see  Kom.  xvi,  27." 

''{Our  Saviour.)  From  this  appellation  it  is  argued, 
that  the  wise  God,  to  whom  this  doxology  is  addressed,  is 
Jesus  Christ,  wiiose  proper  title  is  our  Saviour,  and  who 
is  called  God  in  other  passages  of  Scripture,  particularly 
Horn,  ix,  5,  where  he  is  styled,  '  God  over  all  hlessed 
for  ever?  Xevertheless,  as  in  some  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, particularly  Luke  i,  47 ;  1  Tim.  i,  1 ;  Titus  i,  3, 
the  Father  is  styled  Our  Saviour.  This  argument  like- 
wise is  doubtful." — Macknight  on  the  Epistles,  Rom. 
xvi,  27. 


226 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


Macknight  classes  Jude,  ver.  25;  Eom.  xvi,  27,  and 
1  Tim.  i,  IT,  and  treats  them  altogether,  in  each  case 
applying  the  title  God,  to  God,  and  not  to  the  Son  of 
God."^  I  hope  that  my  brother  will  cease  to  quote  texts, 
and  apply  them  in  such  a  manner,  since  it  only  puts  me 
to  the  trouble  of  refuting  him. 

As  my  brother  still  insists  that  there  can  be  no  medium 
between  God  and  the  creature,  and  that  it  is  impossible 
in  the  nature  of  things,  but  that  the  Son  of  God  must  be 
either  the  one  or  the  other,  I  will  now  present  you  with 
the  views  of  some  English  bishops,  much  more  learned 
than  either  of  us — at  least  than  myself — I  do  not  know 
the  extent  of  my  brother's  attainments.  Mosh.  Yol.  ii, 
314.  "  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  a  man  of  great  abilities,  judg- 
ment and  learning,  who,  in  1724,  was  accused  of  alter- 
ing and  modifying  the  ancient  and  orthodox  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  i3ut  it  must  argue  a  great  want  of  equity 
and  candor,  to  rank  this  eminent  man  in  the  class  of 
Arians — taking  that  term  in  its  proper  and  natural  sig- 
nification— for  he  only  maintained  what  is  commonly 
called  the  Arminian  subordination,  which  has  been,  and 
still  is,  adopted  by  some  of  the  greatest  men  in  England, 
and  even  by  some  of  the  most  learned  bishops  in  that 
country.  This  doctrine  he  illustrated  with  greater  care 
and  perspicuity  than  any  had  done  before  him,  and  taught 
that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  equal  in  na- 
ture, and  difierent  in  rank,  authority  and  subordination." 
■ — Applegate's  quarto  edition,  p.  654. 

Dr.  Clarke  denied  the  self-existence  of  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  maintained  their  derivation  from, 
and  subordination  to,  the  Father ;  and  yet  maintained 
that  they  were  of  the  same  nature.  Such,  precisely,  is 
the  Christian  doctrine.  Does  my  brother  think  that  be- 
ing three  in  person,  but  one  in  nature,  would  make  them 
one  God  ?  This  would  no  more  teach  that  God  is  one, 
than  mankind  are  one.  We  are  all  partakers  of  the 
same  nature ;  but  we  are  not  one  man  on  that  account. 
There  is  no  enlightened  Christian  who  will  deny  that  the 


DISCUSSIOJT  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


227 


Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  of  the  same  nature ; 
but  we  do  deny  that  three  persons  are  all  God. 

I  want  my  brother  to  remember  these  authorities — not 
mine,  but  i'rom  his  own  side  of  the  house;  yet  they 
agree  with  me,  and  differ  with  my  brother.  I  leave  them 
to  settle  the  question  in  dispute  among  themselves. 

My  brother  quotes  Gen.  i,  1,  ^'  In  the  beginning  God," 
(Heb.  Elohim)  he  admits  that  Elohim  should  not  be 
translated  in  the  plural ;  although  he  quotes  authority  to 
prove  that  it  should  !  Dr.  Clarke  admits,  on  Gen.  iii,  5, 
that  it  should  not  be  translated  Gods,  but  God.  My 
brother  refers  to  Gen.  i,  26,  "  Let  us  make  man."  I  have 
no  doubt,  but  God  was  here  speaking  to  his  Son,  by 
whom  he  made  the  worlds,  Heb.  i,  1-3.  But  my  brother 
does  not  believe  that  God  had  a  Son  at  that  time,  nor 
until  four  thousand  years  after. 

My  brother  avoids  stating  whether  those  honors,  which 
he  referred  to  in  his  exhortation  this  morning,  should  be 
paid  to  the  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ ;  that  is  an  im- 
portant point,  which  I  do  not  wish  him  to  evade. 

My  brother  says,  that  Christ  paid  down,  as  the  price 
of  our  redemption,  a  perfect  human  nature,  as  good  as 
Adam,  which  became  of  infinite  merit,  by  being  ofiered 
upon  the  altar  of  divinity ;  but  Clarke  says,  that  God 
will  no  more  accept  of  man's  blood  in  sacrifice,  than  he 
will  swine's  blood.  1  want  my  brother  to  reconcile  these 
contradictions ;  and  also,  to  tell  us  to  whom  Christ  paid 
the  price  of  our  redemption  ?  Here,  my  brother  became 
veiy  eloquent  in  his  discourse — as  he  often  does — and  I 
feel  very  good  under  it ;  but  I  want  him  to  come  up  to 
the  question,  and  meet  the  arguments  involved  in  these 
propositions.  In  defiance  of  the  very  best  orthodox  ex- 
pounders of  the  text  in  Isaiah,  "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born, 
unto  us  a  Son  is  given,"  &c.,  he  maintains,  that  the  child 
born  and  son  given,  was  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  "  very 
man,  human  nature  ; "  and  that  the  mighty  God  was  the 
divine  nature  which  dwelt  in  that  man,  which  is  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  Socinianism.    But  the  text  says,  that 


228 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


the  child  born  should  be  called  the  Mighty  God.  He 
says,  that  there  is  harmony  in  the  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead!  Harmony!  And  that  Christ  must  possess 
Omnipotence  to  create  the  world.  Why  will  not  my 
brother  answer  my  arguments  on  this  point,  instead  of 
passing  them  by  and  making  random  assertions  ?  The 
Bible  says,  that  "God  created  the  worlds  by  his  Son." 
It  does  not  say,  Jesus  Christ,  but  Son,  Heb.  i,  1.  My 
brother  wishes  to  avoid  that,  because  he  does  not  believe 
that  God  had  a  Son  then.  Could  not  God  create  the 
worlds  by  his  Son  ?  If  you  doubt  it,  you  doubt  the  om- 
nipotence of  God. 

He  says,  that  I  "admitted  that  Christ  possesses  Omni- 
potent power,  and  that  this  is  the  only  point  which  I 
have  given  up." 

I  thank  him  for  the  compliment,  that  this  is  the  only 
point  I  have  given  up ;  but  I  do  not  admit  any  such 
thing,  and  I  have  given  nothing  up,  as  yet !  He  again 
quotes,  "  I  have  power  to  lay  down  my  life,"  and  thinks 
that  it  was  the  man  part  of  Christ  that  died,  but  the  di- 
vine nature  gave  it  this  power.  Unitarians  believe  pre- 
cisely the  same.  But  he  defines  what  he  means  by  the 
Trinity.  He  says,  that  God  is  only  one  ;  yet  he  is  the 
God  of  nature,  the  God  of  providence,  and  the  God  of 
grace.  Yery  well !  Why  did  he  not  go  on,  and  say,  he 
is  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the 
God  of  Jacob  ?  but  surely  this  does  not  prove  the  Trinity. 

I  will  now  present  some  additional  arguments  on  the 
Holy  Spirit,  showing  that  there  was  no  real  Trinity  yet, 
down  to  380.  The  most  eminent  Bishops  thought,  as 
they  found  the  name  God  nowhere  used  expressly  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  they  would  not  venture  so  to  name  it ; 
Hilary,  now  claimed  as  a  most  eminent  Trinitarian,  know- 
ing it  only  as  the  Spirit  of  God,  (Nean.  ii,  419) ;  while 
others  supposed  it  to  be  an  angel  or  agent,  and  all,  that 
both  it  and  the  Son  were  subordinate  to  the  Father. 
(Nean.  i,  609.)  The  Bible  makes  the  Holy  Ghost  bear 
the  same  relation  to  God,  that  our  spirit  does  to  us. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


229 


"What  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit 
of  a  man  which  is  in  him;  even  so  the  things  of  God, 
knoweth  no  man  (no  one)  but  the  Spirit  of  God."  1  Cor. 
ii,  11.  Now  who  will  say  that  a  man's  spirit  is  a  distinct 
and  separate  person  from  the  man  ?  Job  xxvi,  13,  says, 
"  By  his  spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens  ;  his  hand 
hath  formed  the  crooked  serpent;"  and  Ps.  xxxiii,  6, 
By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made,  and 
all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth."  Ps. 
viii,  3,  "The  heavens,  the  work  of  thy  fingers,"  &c. 

Now,  here  we  see  that  there  would  be  the  same  con- 
sistency in  saying  that  God's  hand,  word,  breath,  and 
fingers,  were  all  as  distinct  persons  in  the  Godhead,  as  the 
Holy  Ghost,  for  the  same  w^ork  is  performed  by  each. 
Luke  xi,  20.  Jesus  says  :  "  K  I,  with  the  finger  of  God, 
cast  out  devils  ;"  but  in  Matt,  xii,  28,  he  says :  "  If  I  cast 
out  devils  by  the  spirit  of  God  ;"  now  there  is  the  same 
reascfti  for  making  the  finger  of  God  a  separate  person, 
that  my  brother  gave  for  making  the  Holy  Ghost  a  sepa- 
rate person.  He  said  that  the  Father  begat  Christ,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  begat  Christ,  so  it  was  as  much  a  person 
as  the  Father.  So  here,  devils  were  cast  out  by  the 
finger  of  God,  and  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  There  is  just  as 
much  proof,  my  friends,  that  the  finger  of  God  is  a  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  person  in  the  Trinity,  as  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is.  That  the  spirit  of  God  is  possessed  by  others, 
is  no  proof  that  it  is  a  person.  The  spirit  of  men,  is  often 
thus  possessed  by  others.  In  Lnke  i,  17,  it  says  that  John 
the  Baptist  would  not  only  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
but  that  he  should  go  before  the  Lord  in  the  spirit  and 
power  of  Eli  as.  In  2  Kings  ii,  15,  we  find  that  the 
spirit  of  Elijah  rested  upon  Elisha,  after  Elijah  had  gone 
up  into  heaven.  In  1  Cor.  v,  3,  Paul  says:  "For  I 
verily  as  absent  in  body,  but  present  in  spirit."  There  is 
just  as  much  proof  that  the  spirit  of  a  man  is  a  distinct 
person^  as  that  the  spirit  of  God  is. 

If  the  holy  Ghost  be  the  supreme  God,  then  God  has 
been  seen  in  a  bodily  shape,  like  a  dove. — Luke  iii,  22. 


230 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


And  men  are  baptized  with  the  supreme  God,  and  with 
fire. — Luke  iii.  16. 

And  God  anointed  Jesus  Christ  with  the  supreme 
God. — Acts  X.  3S. 

The  Holy  Ghost  assumed  the  form  of  cloven,  fiery 
tongues.  Acts  ii,  3 ;  but  this  could  not  be  true  of  God. 
God  gives  us^f  his  spirit ;  but  God  would  not  give  the 
supreme  God.  Jesus  sends  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  not  the 
supreme  God. 

I  now  come  again  to  a  difficulty  of  my  brother's,  which 
he  cannot  explain  away.  He  says  that  *•  The  Holy 
Ghost  begat  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  the  Father  begat 
him,"  so  that  there  is  just  as  much  proof  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  a  person,  as  that  the  Father  is.  Here  then  are 
tv:o  persons  begetting  Christ,  according  to  my  brother ! 
and  this  is  true,  if  his  system  be  true.  Two  i^ei-sons 
begat  Christ  of  the  Virgin  I  Christ  has  two  fathers  then ! 
What  a  system !  My  brother  may  evade  this,  but  he 
cannot,  and  never  will,  explain  it.  Mark  him  well,  he 
will  not  I 

I  will  now  present  another  unanswerable  argument. 
God  is  a  spirit.  John  iv,  2^.  Xow  if  the  Holy  Ghost  ^ 
is  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father,  here  are  two  spirits. 
That  the  pre-existent  Logos  is  another  person,  my  brother 
contends,  and  that  it  is  a  spirit,  he  will  not  deny ;  here 
then  are  three  spirits.  The  Father  is  a  spirit ;  the  Son 
is  a  spirit,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  spirit,  and  all  equal 
in  substance,  power,  and  eternity.  Well  now,  the  Son 
has  a  spirit,  for  God  hath  sent  forth  the  spirit  of  his  Son 
into  yom-  hearts,  crying,  Abba  Father.  Gal.  iv,  6.  That 
his  was  a  pre-existent  spirit,  is  proved  by  its  prompting 
the  prophets.  1  Pet.  i,  11.  K  any  man  have  not  the 
spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his.  Eo.  viii,  9.  This  makes 
four  spirits.  God  also  has  a  spirit.  Gen.  i,  2.  The  spirit 
of  God.  And  if  the  Holy  Ghost  be  equal  to  the  two  other 
persons,  then  it  must  have  a  spirit ;  here  are  six  spirits ; 
and,  according  to  my  brother's  reasoning,  six  jx^rsons. 
Or  let  him  tell  us  the  difl'erence  between  the  spirituality 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


231 


of  the  first  person,  and  the  third,  or  why  the  third  per- 
son should  not  have  a  spirit,  as  well  as  the  first.  Yet 
his  Trinitarian  fathers  down  to  380,  did  not  know  whether 
the  Spirit  was  an  angel  of  God,  or  an  agent.  My  brother 
has  all  along  been  saying  that  he  will  take  up  my  argu- 
ments, and  answer  them  in  a  regular  course,  at  a  proper 
time.  Now  this  is  the  proper  time  and  place.  Monday 
is  the  last  day  on  this  question,  therefore,  do  not  put  it 
ofi'  until  Monday,  for  I  will  give  you  enough  on  Montlay 
to  answer  Monday.  I  want  my  brother  to  answer  my 
argument  about  the  two  persons  passing  over  omni- 
potence to  the  third.  He  is  behindhand  upon  many 
points.  I  want  him  to  satisfactorily  explain,  how  Christ 
is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  or  if  not,  how  there  was  a  Trin- 
ity before  there  was  a  Son.  My  brother  cannot  answer 
my  arguments,  nor  the  many  passages  of  Scripture.  I 
want  the  congregation  to  mark  these  things,  and  to  bear 
in  remembrance  the  scores  of  passages  to  which  no  an- 
swer has  been  given.  He  exhorts  his  brethren  not  to 
give  up  their  faith.  Don't  let  him  alarm  you,  by  telling 
you  that  you  can  only  be  saved  by  holding  his  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Bible.  If  you  believe  the  Bible,  it  is  enough  ; 
fear  not  but  you  will  receive  salvation,  if  you  walk  accord- 
ingly. Who,  I  ask,  can  make  a  doctrine  better  than  the 
doctrine  of  the  Bible  ?  or  Articles  of  Religion,  better 
than  those  laid  down  in  the  Holy  Scriptures?  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  spirit 
of  God ;  this  is  the  plain  and  evident  teaching  of  the  word 
of  God  ;  but  my  brother  does  not  believe  it,  nor  does  he 
believe  his  own  creed.  He  promised  to  defend  the  equal- 
ity of  the  Son ;  but  now  he  admits  that  the  Son  is  the 
"  very  man,"  and  not  eternal,  and  consequently,  not  God, 
properly,  at  all,  and  puts  in  the  place  of  the  Son,  the 
Logos,  or  Word  of  God — not  one  of  the  Trinity  at  all. 
Do  not  let  my  brother  make  you  believe  that  your  salva- 
tion depends  on  faith  in  any  such  human  exposition ;  but 
believe  the  Bible,  and  you  will  be  saved. 


232 


I)ISCTJ5SI0^'  ON  THE  TRmTT. 


Me.  Flood's  Fifteenth  reply : 

My  brother  is  very  anxious  that  I  should  catch  up  with 
him,  because  he  wishes  to  fill  up  his  half  hour.  I  can 
not  conceive  of  any  other  reason  he  has  for  it.  It  is  pain- 
M  for  me  to  have  to  complain  ;  and  I  am  sorry  that  my 
brother  complains  that  his  opponent  does  not  keep  up 
with  him.  If  it  is  tnie,  this  intelligent  audience  will 
ascertain  the  fact;  I  should  be  willing  to  appeal  to  the 
audience  to  determine  how  far  I  have  left  my  brother 
unanswered.  He  wishes  to  know  whether  his  opponent 
admits  that  the  Father  is  a  Spirit.  He  does ;  whether  his 
opponent  admits  that  the  Word,  or  Logos,  is  a  Spirit — he 
certainly  does ;  whether  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  the  third 
person  of  the  Trinity,  is  a  Sj>irit — he  certainly  does ;  for 
he  is  termed  a  Holy  Spirit,  and  correctly,  too.  Hence  our 
God  is  a  Spirit :  for  our  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  they  that 
worship  him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 
This,  perhaps,  will  l)e  quite  satisfactoiy,  as  I  have  an- 
swered in  categorical  form.  I  present  an  argument  on 
the  ]^)ersonalily  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  prove  that  he  pos- 
sesses attributes  essential  to  the  divine  nature.  '*  Jesus 
answered,  and  said  unto  him,  Yerily,  verily  I  say  unto 
thee,  except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit, 
he  can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.*'  John 
iii,  5.  Here  the  work  of  regenerating  the  heart — of  re- 
newing man,  and  producing  the  new  birth,  is  attributed 
to  the  Spirit  of  God.  What  does  my  brother  understand 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  ?  He  says  it  does  not  possess  per- 
sonality. He  says  there  were  some  at  the  Xicene  coun- 
cil who  did  not  believe  in  the  personality  of  the  Spirit. 
He  is  very  careful  to  use  the  word  separate,  when  we  use 
the  term  connected  or  united.  Tnis  is  very  convenient 
for  him.  no  doubt.  We  assert  the  Father,  Son.  and  Holy 
Spirit  to  be  equal :  hence,  if  they  are  equal  in  the  divine 
nature,  then,  of  course,  they  are  equal  in  substance,  equal 
in  power,  equal  in  etemit}',  equal  in  glory.  They  can 
not  be  separate  in  the  sense  in  which  he  designs  to  make 
it  appear  ;  he  would  desire  to  separate  our  only  true  God. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


233 


We  hold  that  they  are  only  one  God ;  and  if  any  one  of  the 
number  be  not  God,  in  all  the  essential  elements  of  that 
nature,  we  have  no  God.  We  invite  attention  to  the 
fixct,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  possess  eternity.  Heb.  ix, 
14,  Hovr  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who, 
through  the  Eternal  Spirit,  offered  himself  without  spot 
to  God."  Here  the  apostle  'declares  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
be  the  ''Eternal  Spirit."  My  brother  would  have  us 
substitute  "Influence,"  or  "Holy  Influence,"  for  "Holy 
Ghost."  Were  we  to  admit  this  change  we  should  read, 
"  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Influence;"  or,  allowing  that  the  word 
"  Holy  "  should  previously  occur,  it  would  be,  "  I  bap- 
tize thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Influence."  It  is  the  most  that  my  opponent 
can  claim  that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  possess  person- 
ality. Omniscience  is  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  Rom. 
XV,  19,  "  Through  the  mighty  signs  and  wonders,  by  the 
power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  so  that  from  Jemsalem  and 
round  about  unto  Illyricum,  I  have  fully  preached  the 
Gospel  of  Christ."  Now  it  was  by  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  that  he  preached  the  gospel  through  that 
region.  We  invite  attention  to  the  truth  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  possesses  omniscience  as  well  as  omnipotence. 
1  Cor.  ii,  10, 11,  "  But  God  hath  revealed  them  unto  us  by 
his  Spirit,  for  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things ;  yea,  the  deep 
things  of  God.  For  what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a 
man,  save  the  Spirit  of  man,  which  is  in  him  ?  Even  so 
the  things  of  God  knoweth  no  man  but  the  Spirit  of 
God."  Here  omniscience  is  attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
hioiciyig  the  things  of  God.  We  may  have  occasion 
to  refer  to  this  argument  again. 

On  the  word  Elohim  he  complains  that  I  did  not  quote 
passages  in  support  of  my  argument.  I  gave  him  chap- 
ter and  verse.  Here  is  the  work,  that  he  may  search  it  out 
if  he  desires.  Watson  presents  moi-e  than  thirty  passages 
where  the  word  does  occur  in  its  plural  form.  Clarke  fol- 
lows in  the  same  argument..   I  did  it  iox  the  purpose  of 


234 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


letting  him  know  the  signification  of  the  term.  Tlie  pas- 
sage might  justly  have  been  rendered  Gods.  This  is  an 
•  argument  drawn  fi'om  Clarke.  Mt  brother  makes  a 
reference  to  Timothy.  I  hare  not  seen  any  thing  in  my 
brother's  remarks  bearing  upon  that  passage  which  affects 
it  in  the  slightest  degree.  He  inquires,  how  can  a  finite 
creature  make  an  infinite  atonement  \  If  my  brother  had 
consented  not  to  pass  over  the  same  ground  more  than 
once,  he  would  have  had  his  barrel  more  nearly  emptied 
than  he  conceives  it  to  be.  I  took  the  position  that  he 
oflered  a  sacrifice  of  a  perfect  humanity,  mysteriously 
nnited  with  the  divinity ;  he  ofiered  the  sacrifice  of  that 
humanity ;  and  the  connection  of  the  humanity  with  the 
divinity,  gave  to  it  an  infinite  merit,  by  which  an  ade- 
quate atonement  was  made  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world.  My  brother  now  denies  that  he  gave  up  that 
Jesus  did  possess  omnipotence.  I  understood  it  as  im- 
plied. He  would  not  admit  that  he  possessed  it ;  he 
now  says  that  he  is  under  no  obligation  to  say  whether 
he  did  or  did  not.  ^ill  he  now  take  the  position  to  dis- 
prove that  Jesus  possessed  omnipotent  power  i  I  assume 
that  he  does ;  that  he  is  possessed  of  all  power  in  heaven 
and  earth;  that  he  possesses  the  right,  and  holds  the 
reins  of  universal  empire ;  he  is  head  over  all  things  to 
the  church.  When  he  is  head  over  all  things,  I  can  not 
conceive  of  any  thing  over  which  he  is  not  head,  unless, 
as  my  brother  says,  all  may  \)Q  part !  Now,  here  I  con- 
ceive that  if  Christ  possesses  all  power  in  heaven,  and  all 
power  in  earth,  and  that  he  is  over  all,  there  can  be  no 
power,  no  superior  power ;  and  if  no  superior  power,  no 
lX)wer  that  is  equal — that  two  almighty  powers,  I  hold, 
can  not  exist  at  the  same  time  in  the  universe.  I  have 
shown,  among  the  powei-s  possessed,  was  the  power  to 
give  life  to  the  highest  order  of  heavenly  existence — the 
source  of  all  life  on  earth,  of  all  life  in  all  worlds — this 
is  the  power  which  must  be  ])05sessed,  to  possess  all 
power  in  heaven  and  earth.  With  what  order  of  intel- 
ligences, I  should  like  to  know,  does  my  brother  associate 


DISCUSSION   ON  THE  TRIXITY. 


235 


Jesiis  Christ?  "With  God,  makiog  him  one  with  God, 
in  the  true  and  proper  sense,  as  to  his  perfections  ?  Or 
with  angels,  any  of  the  order  of  angels  ?  or  with  human- 
ity, with  men  ?  I  should  like  to  know  what  character  he 
intends  to  attach  to  Jesus  Christ  ?  After  four  days'  dis- 
cussion, I  know  not  that  he  has  attached  any.  That  he 
is  equal  with  the  Father  in  power,  glory,  and  eternity ; 
that  he  is  God,  we  have  declared  out  and  openly.  Xow 
I  should  be  pleased  if  he  would  point  out  to  us.  The 
Son  of  God  is  an  indefinite  term,  unless  he  explains  what 
he  means  by  it  properly ;  for  angels  are  said  to  be  sons 
of  God ;  men  are  said  to  be  sons  of  God  by  creation,  by 
preservation,  and  by  redemption.  Those  who  have  ac- 
cepted the  terms  of  redemption,  stand  in  this  endearing 
relation,  acknowledged  his  sons — as  his  adopted  ones.  I 
have  yet  to  learn  where  my  brother  places  his  Saviour  ? 
what  he  makes  of  him  ?  whether  he  be  omnipotent  or 
not  ?  He  says,  *•  Aly  argument  is  here  ;  he  has  not  an- 
swered it ;  he  can  not  answer  it.  If  I  bear  witness  of 
myself,  my  witness  is  not  true.''  I  have  not  insinuated 
that  my  brother  manifests  any  want  of  argument,  except 
that  which  necessarily  proceeds  from  the  feebleness  and 
untenableness  of  his  cause. 

I  quoted,  yesterday,  a  number  of  authorities,  showing 
that  this  doctrine  of  the  equality  of  the  Father  with  the 
Son,  was  held  from  Ignatius,  A.  D.  107 — that  all  that 
was  essential  to  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute,  essential 
equality  of  Jesus  Christ,  was  clearly  taught ;  and  espe- 
cially the  words  of  our  proposition,  with  regard  to  the 
equality  of  Christ  with  the  Father.  Hence,  I  quoted 
this  authority  to  show,  that  all  that  was  essential  to  the 
character  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  God,  was  to  be  found  in  the 
testimony  of  Ignatius  as  early  as  107 — long  before  the 
Kicene  creed  was  compiled.  I  also  quoted  Justin  Mar- 
tyi*,  embracing  the  essential  doctrine  of  the  Deity  of 
Christ,  as  well  as  of  the  Trinity ;  for  the  three  persons 
are  deified,  whom  we  worship  and  adore  as  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  as  Christ  says,  are  to  be  wor- 
shiped in  spu'it  and  in  truth. 


236 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


According  to  Mackniglit's  rendering,  Jesus  Christ  can 
not  be  like  God,  and  be  an  inferior  being.  He  is  like 
God  in  all  the  essential  elements  of  his  nature,  if  Mac- 
knight's  rendering  is  to  be  taken,  which  I  do  not  admit, 
although  a  respectable  authority. 

Gregory's  Evidences,  p.  337.  "  Athenagords,  who 
flourished  in  the  second  century,  speaks  of  Christians 
who  made  small  account  of  the  present  life,  but  were 
intent  only  upon  contemplating  God  and  knowing  his 
Word^  who  is  from  him  ;  what  union  the  Son  has  with 
the  Father  ;  what  communication  the  Father  has  vnth 
the  So7i ;  what  the  Spirit  is,  and  what  the  union  and  dis- 
tinction are  of  such :  so  united  the  Spirit,  the  Son,  and  the 
rather." 

Here,  these  three  persons  are  spoken  of  at  this  early 
period,  in  a  very  distinct  manner. 

"  Cyprian,  when  arguing  against  the  invalidity  of 
heretical  baptisms,  inquires  how  the  subject  of  such 
baptism  can  become  the  temple  of  God,  saying :  If  ye  be 
thereby  made  the  temple  of  God,  I  would  ask,  of  what 
Divine  person  is  it  ?  Is  it  of  God,  the  Creator  ?  He 
could  not  be  so  if  he  believed  not  in  him.  Is  it  of 
Christ  ?  Neither  can  he  be  his  temple  while  he  denies 
Christ  to  be  God.  Is  it  then  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  But 
since  the  three  are  one,  how  can  the  Holy  Spirit  have 
friendship  with  him  that  is  at  enmity  with  either  Father 
or  Son  ?  This  father  abounds  with  passages  in  which 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  is  asserted." 

I  supposed,  in  the  beginning,  that  my  opponent,  being 
a  Bible  man,  would  present  Bible  argument,  and  that  he 
w^ould  perhaps  try  to  show  by  his  own  skill,  the  perfect 
harmony  of  passages  maintaining  the  different  positions 
which  he  assumes. 

Mk.  Summerbell's  Sixteenth  address : 

My  brother  says  that  I  have  not  brought  Scripture  to 
prove  my  position.  I  have  cited  him  to  over  thirteen 
thousand  texts  in  classes,  giving  him  sample  texts  repre- 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


237 


sentiDg  those  of  each  class,  agreeing  to  bring  forward 
the  whole  if  he  would  examine  them  ;  but  he  has  hardly 
noticed  the  specimen  texts.  I  have  quoted  some  thirteen 
hundred  texts,  for  many  of  them  giving  him  chapter  and 
verse,  of  which  he  has  hardly  replied  to  fifty.  And  yet, 
he  assures  you  that  I  am  not  a  Bible  man.  Truly,  there 
is  no  accounting  for  tastes.  He  quotes  Ignatius,  to  prove 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  But  he  finds  no  Trinity 
there.  Ignatius  speaks  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  just  as  I  would,  and  my  brother  thinks  that  this 
proves  the  Trinity,  and  thinks  it  truly  wonderful  to  find 
evidence  as  early  as  that ;  while,  according  to  him,  it  had 
been  believed  since  the  days  of  Adam.  But  from  vrhom 
does  my  brother  quote  ?  Not  from  history,  but  from  a 
sectarian  book  written  to  prove  the  Trinity — a  book  of 
no  reputation  at  all ;  very  unlike  the  works  which  I  read, 
Neander,  Mosheim,  Macknight,  &c.  But  he  takes  up 
this  ex  parte  evidence,  and  relies  upon  it,  just  as  if  I 
should  prove  my  positions  by  books  written  by  our  own 
ministers.  I  will  now  read  you  a  few  more  extracts  from 
the  fathers. 

Polycarp,  A.  D.  108,  in  whose  words  my  brother 
vainly  attempted  to  find  a  Trinity,  says,  praying  to  God 
"  Almighty  God,  Father  of  thy  beloved  Son  Jesus 
Christ ;  "  but  says  nothing  of  a  Trinity.  Clement,  A.  D. 
96,  an  Apostolic  father,  says,  "  We  adore  him  as  being 
the  Son  of  God."  Justin  Martyr  says,  There  is  one 
God,  who  manifested  himself  by  Jesus  Christ,  his  Son, 
who  is  his  Eternal  Word." — Milner  i,  93.  Hegesippus, 
the  only  historian  before  the  fourth  century,  is  now  con- 
demned as  a  Unitarian.  My  brother  read  the  fathers, 
but  he  found  no  Trinity  there.  Mosheim  says,  Vol.  i,  p. 
128,  that  at  the  council  of  Constantinople,  "  A  hundred 
and  fifty  bishops  gave  the  finishing  touch  to  what  the 
council  of  Nice  had  left  imperfect,  and  fixed,  in  a  full 
and  determinate  manner,  the  doctrine  of  three  persons 
in  one  God."  Mosheim,  Yol.  i,  128.  Thus  he  agrees 
with  Barnes,  who  repudiates  the  idea  that  the  Nicene 


238 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


creed  13  Trinitarian.  But  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  not  yet  settled  in  the  ninth  century,  as  Mo- 
sheim  teaches,  Yol.  i,  p.  225. 

Nor  was  the  two  natures  of  Christ  settled  till  the 
Berenth  century.  Gibbon,  Yol.  iv,  422,  says,  under  this 
date  "  the  creed  was  finally  settled,  which  teaches  that 
two  wills  are  harmonized  in  the  person  of  Christ.'-  Gib- 
bon was  not  a  Christian,  but  he  was  a  learned  and  able 
man,  and  is  an  authentic  historian ;  and  if  my  brother 
wants  his  authority  vouched  for,  he  may  go  to  Barnes  on 
Revelations,  who  says,  that  he  derived  more  light  respect- 
ing the  book  of  Revelation,  from  Gibbon,  than  from  any 
other  writer.  My  brother  is  a  good  speaker ;  he  possesses 
talents  of  a  very  respectable  order,  but  he  fails  in  the 
argument,  and  in  his  main  efforts  is  but  beating  the  air ; 
for  it  is  impossible  to  prove  a  theory  unless  he  has 
something  to  prove  it  by.  But  he  has  not  been  able  to 
bring  one  word  to  support  the  Trinity  yet,  either  from 
the  Bible  or  ancient  history,  if  we  except  the  heathen 
record  referred  to  by  Clarke;  while  I  prove  every  position 
by  those  whom  he  claims  as  his  own  authorities.  Justin 
Martyr,  whom  my  brother  claims  as  a  Trinitarian  father, 

conceived  of  tlie  Spirit  (not  as  a  third  person  and  God, 
but)  as  subordinate  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  standing 
in  some  relation  to  the  angels."  Origen  describes  it  as 
the  only  begotten  of  the  Father  through  the  Son." 
And  Xeander  farther  states,  that  the  prevailing  opinion 
in  the  western  church  was,  "  one  Divine  essence  in  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  but  at  the  same  time  a  subordination 
in  relation  of  the  Son  to  the  Father."  Xeander,  Yol.  i, 
pp.  605,  608.  You  see  that  these  could  not  be  Trinita- 
rians, and  if  these  were  not,  then  there  were  no  Trinita- 
rians yet  in  the  church. 

My  brother  does  not  like  my  reminding  you  of  the 
arguments  he  has  not  answered.  I  can  not  help  it,  but 
still  call  upon  him  to  answer  them.  He  did  not  prove 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  a  distinct  person  from  the 
Father  J  and  God,  which  he  should  have  proved.    He  is 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


239 


to  prove  that  each  of  the  three  is  a  distinct  person  and 
one  God.  To  prove  that  they  were  three  infinites  united 
to  make  one  infinite,  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  a  part 
is  as  great  as  the  whole. 

He  thinks,  that  I  would  desire  to  separate  the  persons 
of  the  Godhead.  No,  I  would  not.  There  is  but  one 
person  in  the  Godhead.  I  believe  in  one  undivided  God, 
the  great  eternal  fountain  of  all  existence,  and  one  only 
begotten  Son  of  God.  I  do  not  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  a  second  |:>erson  in  the  Godhead.  Xor  does  my  bro- 
ther truly  believe  that  Christ  is  equal  with  God,  but  that 
he  is,  as  respects  his  divine  nature.  Jimeson,  his  Ex- 
ponent of  the  Twenty -five  Articles,  says,  God  and  the 
two  other  persons  in  the  Trinity.''  Tliis  is  what  I  call 
separating  them. 

He  says  that  he  holds  to  the  plural  form  of  Elohim, 
and  mentions  some  thirty  passages  to  prove  that  it  should 
be  translated  Gods.  Thus  he  at  first  denied,  that  he  had 
more  than  one  God;  but  now,  it  is  Elohim,  the  Gods! 
Strange  theory. 

He  says,  that  the  finite  humanity  was  sacrificed  upon 
the  altar  of  divinity ;  but  he  does  not  prove  it,  nor  is  it 
true.  Still  he  cleaves  to  the  man  sacrifice ;  yet  Clarke 
says,  that  God  will  no  more  accept  of  man's  blood,  than 
he  will  swine's  blood.  He  still  says,  that  Jesus  possessed 
Omnipotence,  but  does  not  prove  it ;  but  Jesus  says,  I 
can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing,-'  and  I  must  believe 
Jesus.  He  says,  that  if  all  things  are  put  under  Jesus, 
then  God  must  be  under  him,  or  all^  means  part.  My 
brother  is  arguing  against  the  Bible.  Paul  says,  "Then 
Cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  have  delivered  up  the 
kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father — when  he  shall  have 
put  do-^Mi  all  rule,  and  authority,  and  power,  for  he  must 
reign  till  he  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet ;  the  last 
enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death.  For  he  liath  put 
all  things  under  Ms  feet.  "But  when  he  saith  all  things 
are  put  under  him,  it  is  manifest  that  he  is  excepted  that 
did  put  all  things  under  him."  1  Cor.  xv,  24^-28.  Now 


240 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITY. 


let  him  settle  it  with  Paul.  He  says,  almighty  power 
can  not  exist  in  two  beings ;  but  he  has  it  existing  in 
three  persons  in  his  Trinity. 

Kow  I  want  him  to  show,  why  it  can  not  exist  in  two 
as  well  as  three  ?  He  asks  me,  where  I  place  m}-  Jesus  ? 
I  answer,  just  where  the  Bible  places  hini. 

The  Bible  tells  me,  that  "  he  is  the  Son  of  God,  seated 
at  God's  right  hand."  My  brother  thinks  this  an  orien- 
tal figure  of  speech.  Did  the  dying  Stephen  see  an  ori- 
ental figure  of  speech  ?  He  says  that  I  will  not  define 
what  I  mean  by  the  Son  of  God.  Have  I  not  said, 
that  Jesus  was  God's  Son  ?  that  is  what  1  mean.  Has 
lie  yet  defined  his  three  persons,  and  told  what  three  they 
are  ;  three  men,  three  angels,  or  three  Gods.  My  brother 
quotes  Jesus'  words,  "  If  I  bear  witness  of  myself,  my 
witness  is  not  true ;  "  but  on  his  theory,  did  not  J esus 
bear  witness  of  himself?  Perhaps  this  is  the  reason  why 
he  will  not  believe  him  !  And  was  not  my  brother  bear- 
ing witness  of  himself  ? 

My  brother  has  not  answered  my  historical  argument, 
that  the  anti-Nicene  churches  all  held  to  the  subordina- 
tion of  the  Son  to  the  Father.  He  has  not  explained 
how  it  came,  that  all  the  first  kings,  historians,  lathers, 
nations,  and  councils  were  anti-Trinitarian. 

He  has  not  told  us  whether  he  will  worship  the  very 
man  part  of  his  Christ,  and  the  body  of  his  Grod.  He 
says  he  worships  him  all  as  God — this  is  what  the  apostle 
condemns  as  idolatry — worshiping  the  ''very  man,"  the 
creature  as  the  Creator.  "When  he  calls  Jesus  God,  he 
only  means  that  God  was  in  him — he  don't  mean  that 
the  dying  Jesus  was  God.  Whether  the  man  Christ 
Jesus  possessed  infinite  attributes,  he  has  not  deigned  to 
tell  us.  His  own  position,  "If  God  gave  Christ  all 
power,"  &c.,  that  this  passing  over  of  all  power  annihi- 
lates God,  which  I  turned  upon  him,  by  showing  that  he 
made  the  divinity  give  the  humanity  all  power,  and  so 
the  humanity  became  God — and  thus,  his  own  logic  anni- 
hilated his  God — he  has  not  satisfactorily  cleared  up. 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


241 


My  arguments  on  the  personal  pronouns,  I,  Me,  My, 
Thee,  Tliy,  Thou,  &c.,  he  has  not  answered.  He  denies 
that  the  Si  vine  Saviour  is  the  Son  of  God.  He  admits 
that  the  Child  born,  Is.  ix,  6,  was  not  God,  but  that  the 
mighty  God  was  God — doctrine  that  Socinians  agree  with 
him  in. 

My  brother  quoted  Gen.:  "Let  m  make  man,"  and 
cited  me  to  several  similar  texts  which  he  did  not  read, 
as  proof  that  God,  or  Elohim,  should  be  rendered  Gods ; 
but  if  my  brother  has  any  other  texts,  let  him  quote  them. 
I  have  no  doubt  that  God  here  spoke  to  his  Son,  by  whom 
he  made  the  worlds.  But  as  my  brother  does  not  believe 
that  God  had  a  Son,  he  thinks  that  God  was  talking  to 
himself.  My  brother  quoted  his  Discipline  that  the  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  were  united  in  God — very 
God  and  very  man — the  God  of  the  Bible  ;  but  that  is 
not  Bible. 

My  brother,  in  his  long  exhortation  this  morning,  care- 
fully avoided  telling  us  whether  these  honors  were  ascribed 
xo  the  Lamb  that  was  slain.  I  still  wait  to  know  if  he 
will  worship  the  Jesus  that  died  for  him.  He  quoted 
1  Tim.  i,  17,  Xow  to  the  King  Eternal,  Immortal,  In- 
visible ;  the  only  wise  God,  our  Saviotir^'^'^  and  called 
my  attention  to  it.  Xow  I  gave  it  my  attention,  and 
found  the  words  "  our  Saviour were  not  in  the  text. 
The  text  is  thus  against  my  brother,  by  calling  the  invis- 
ible God  the  only  wise  God.  Clarke,  his  own  authority, 
Bays  that  God  thus  saves  us,  &c.,  "  making  me  (Christ)  a 
pattern  to  all  them  that  shall  hereafter  believe  on  me." 
Thus  my  brother  quotes,  first  his  Discipline,  and  then 
misquotes  Scripture  to  prove  his  position.  Come,  come, 
brother,  if  you  have  any  Trinity  present  it,  or  else  confess 
that  you  can  not.  Again,  my  brother  says,  that  Christ 
paid  down  the  price  of  our  redemption,  a  perfect  human 
nature ;  yet  Clarke  says  that  God  will  no  more  accept 
man's  blood  in  sacrifice,  than  swine's  blood.  Beside,  I 
ask  my  brother  how  a  finite  human  nature  could  pay  an 
infinite  demand  ?  I  know  that  my  brother  is  tired 
hearing  this,  but  h'  must  bear  it. 
21 


242  DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


My  argument  this  morning,  proving  that  his  theory 
plainly  made  three  Gods,  my  brother  carefully  avoided. 
I  now  again  urge  him  to  answer  it.  The  debate  is  going 
before  the  world,  and  his  good  talh  will  not  supply  the 
place  of  argument.  My  brother  still  continues  to  be  lay- 
ing my  arguments  over  to  be  answered  in  the  future ; 
but  we  have  but  one  more  day.  I  urge  him  to  answer 
them  now:  now  is  the  time!  My  brother  carefully 
avoided  my  argument  on  the  personality.  He  says  there 
is  harmony  in  the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead ! ! !  Some 
Trinitarians,  however,  think  differently,  and  say  that  one 
of  them  killed  the  otlier;  and  quote  Zech.,  "Awake,  O 
sword,  against  my  shepherd,"  to  prove  it.  lie  says  Christ 
must  possess  omnipotence  to  create  the  world.  It  would 
be  much  better  to  answer  my  arguments  on  omnipotence, 
than  to  make  random  assertions.  The  Bible  tells  us  that 
God  created  the  worlds  hy  Jesus  Christ — not  that  Jesus 
Christ  created  them  alone,  or  by  his  own  power. 

But  my  brother  says,  that  Ileb.  i,  3,  teaches  that  he 
upholds  all  things  by  the  w^ord  of  his  own  power.  No, 
my  brother,  I  proved  to  you  that  it  was  God's  power. 
He  says  that  I  admitted  that  Christ  did  not  possess  omni- 
potent power.  I  admitted  that  he  had  not  proved  it.  I 
never  said  that  he  did.  On  the  "power  to  lay  down  his 
life,"  he  now  says  that  the  divine  nature  had  power  to 
lay  down  the  life  of  the  human  nature,  and  power  to 
take  it  again.  This  all  Socinians  admit — that  the  divine 
nature,  God  in  Christ,  had  this  power.  Again  and  again 
he  says  that  God  is  the  God  of  creation,  providence, 
and  God  of  redemption.  He  may  just  as  well  say  the 
God  of  Abraham,  God  of  Isaac,  and  God  of  Jacob. 

When  I  proved  to  him  that  Paul  was  present  in  spirit, 
when  absent  in  body ;  instead  of  admitting  that  he  was 
wrong  in  challenging  such  proof,  he  said,  or  asserted, 
that  the  highest  seraph  in  heaven  could  not  be  present 
in  more  than  one  place  at  the  same  time.  Neither  my 
■  brother  nor  I  can  tell  the  extent  of  the  powers  of  celestial 
spirits. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


243 


I  will  now  continue  my  quotations  from  the  fathers, 
by  which  you  can  not  fail  seeing  that  they  were  not  Trini- 
tarians ;  but,  in  the  main,  evidently  agreed  with  us.  I 
will  first  quote — 

Justin  Martyr,  A.  D.  140.  I  will  endeavor  to 
show  that  he  who  appeared  to  Abraham,  Jacob,  and 
Moses,  and  who  is  called  God  in  Scripture,  is  different 
from  the  God  who  made  all  things;  niim.erically 
different^  but  the  same  in  will.  For  I  say  that  he  never 
made  any  thing  but  what  that  God  who  made  all  things^ 
and  above  whom  there  is  no  God,  willed  that  he  should 
do  and  say."    Strom.,  Lib.  6,  646. 

"  In  uttering  a  word  we  beget  a  word."    Ibid.  226. 

"  In  the  beginning,  before  all  creatures  God  begat  from 
himself  a  certain  reasonable  power,  called  the  Glory  of 
God,  sometimes  the  Lord,  and  Logos  ;  because  he  is  sub- 
servient to  the  Father's  will,  and  was  begotten  at  the 
Father's  pleasure."    Ed.  Thirlby,  p.  266. 

Theophilus  says :  "  When  God  said  let  us  make  man, 
he  spoke  to  nothing  but  his  own  Logos  or  Wisdom.  Be- 
fore any  thing  was  made,  God  had  the  Logos  for  his 
council.  When  he  proceeded  to  produce,  then  he  emit- 
ted the  Logos — the  first-born  of  ever}^  creature."  Ad 
Autolycum,  Lib.  2,  p.  129. 

Iren^us  says :  If  any  one  asks  us  how  is  the  Son 
produced  from  the  Father,  we  tell  him  that  whether  it  be 
called  generation,  muncupation,  or  derpation,  or  by  what- 
ever other  name,  this  ineffable  generation  is  called,  no  one 
knows  it;  neither  Yalentinus,  nor  Marcion,  Saturninus, 
Bassillidus,  angels  or  archangels,  principalities  or  pow- 
ers, but  only  the  Father  who  begat,  and  the  Son  who  is 
begotten."    Lib.  2,  ch.  48,  p.  176. 

Tertullian  says:  "Before  all  things  God  was  alone, 
but  not  absolutely  alone ;  for  he  had  with  him  his  own 
reason,  since  God  is  a  rational  being.  This  reason  the 
Greeks  called  Logos,  which  term  we  render  '  Sermo.' 
You  will  say  what  is  speech  (Logos,)  beside  a  word  or 
sound,  unsubstantial  and  incorporeal:  nothing  unsub- 


244 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


stautial  or  incorporeal  can  proceed  from  God.  Wlien 
did  this  speech  assume  its  form  and  dress  \  its  sound  and 
voice  i  When  God  said.  Let  there  be  light.  This  is  the 
perfect  maturity  of  the  Word,  which  p»roceeded  from  God; 
trom  this  time  making  him  equal  to  himself,  from  which 
procession  he  became  his  Son,  his  lirst-born  and  only- 
begotte;n ;  begotten  before  all  worlds :  the  Son  is  the 
fenno,  the  other  angels,  Spiritxis  Dei.  There  is  a  great 
difference  between  the  Son  of  God  and  the  other  angels." 
Praxeam.  ch.  5,  p.  502-3,  and  in  L.  sec.  8,  p.  371. 

Tertullian  further  says,  "God  was  not  always  a  Father 
or  a  Judge ;  since  he  could  not  be  a  Father  before  he  had 
a  Son,  nor  a  judge  before  sin.  There  was  a  time  when 
both  the  Son  and  sin  were  not."    Chap.  3,  334. 

Lactantics  says :  "And  God.  before  making  the  world, 
produced  a  holy  and  incorruptible  Spirit,  which  he  might 
call  his  Son ;  and  afterward  by  him  created  innumerable 
otlier  spirits,  called  angels.  Christ  taught  us  (that)  one 
God  alone  (is)  to  be  worshiped,  neither  did  he  ever  call 
himself  God."    Just.,  Lib.  4,  p.  264. 

ILelaey,  who  wrote  after  the  council  of  Nice,  says, 
"  God  the  Father  is  the  cause  of  all — without  beginning 
and  solitary;  but  the  Son  was  produced  by  the  Father, 
without  time,  and  was  created  and  founded  before  the 
ages.  He  was  not  before  he  was  born,  but  he  was  bom 
without  time  ;  he  alone  subsists  from  the  Father  alone." 
Lib.  459. 

EusEBius  says :  "If  this  makes  them  apprehend  lest  we 
should  seem  to  introduce  two  Gods,  let  them  know  that 
though  we  do,  indeed,  acknowledge  the  Son  to  be  God, 
yet  there  is  absolutely  but  one  God,  even  he  who  is  alone, 
without  origin  and  unbegotten."  Clarke  on  the  Trinity, 
p.  307. 

Thus  my  brother's  appeal  to  the  fathers  is  entirely 
against  him.  I  insist  upon  it  that  my  brother  clear  up 
these  remarkable  argwments  !  and  answer  the  evidences 
and  arguments  which  I  have  produced. 

I  plead  for  my  Lord  and  Saviour  the  Son  of  God,  for 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


245 


an  undivided  Jesus  ;  I  want  none  of  this  cutting  and  di- 
viding my  Saviour — to  me  he  is  all  divine.  How  can  I 
but  worship  him!  God  commands  it — and  when  I  look  at 
his  bleeding  side,  his  temples  torn,  his  pierced  hands  and 
feet,  and  remember  that  this  body  was  prepared  for  him 
that  he  might  die  for  me — that  he  left  the  courts  of  glory 
and  took  upon  him  this  form  of  a  servant — that  he  was 
rich,  and  for  our  sakes  became  poor,  and  was  made  a 
little  lower  than  the  angels  that  he  might  die  for  me,  I 
must  worship  him.  Not  simply  the  divine  nature  that 
was  in  him  do  I  honor — God  is  in  all  his  saints ;  but 
Jesus,  himself,  the  divine  Son  of  God. 

My  brother  can  preach  an  excellent  sermon.  He  ex- 
horts well ;  he  often  calls  heaven  to  witness  that  he  is 
not  defeated ;  he  says  that  your  salvation  depends  upon 
your  cleaving  to  the  creed;  but  all  this  does  not  answer 
the  argument.  He  talks  well  about  death  and  heaven ; 
but  this  is  only  to  convey  your  minds  away  from  the 
argument ;  and  he  will  continue  thus  to  endeavor  to  carry 
your  minds  awa}^,  in  religious  feeling  and  exhortation, 
to  the  end,  if  you  will  permit  him. 

Mr.  Flood's  Sixteenth  reply : 

We  have  come  to  the  day  of  preparation,  and  nearly 
to  the  evening  of  that  day,  and  in  a  little  while,  your 
attention  will  be  called  to  other  matters — to  the  prepara- 
tion for  God's  Sabbath.  I  would  not  desire,  in  the  slight- 
est degree,  to  interfere  with  any  religious  or  devotional 
feeling,  that  ought  to  exist  on  such  an  occasion,  and  I 
was  quite  pleased  with  the  warm  and  tender  address  of 
my  brother,  to  hear  him  exhort  so  well ;  but,  unhappily, 
we  shall  become  accustomed  to  these  exhortations,  if  they 
happen  to  be  in  the  same  words,  and  they  will  lose  their 
point  when  we  come  to  be  familiar  with  them.  Let  me 
invite  your  attention  to  what  he  regards  as  argument. 
The  references  to  Gregoiy's  Evidences,  I  quoted  in 
support  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  as  maintained  by  the  church  in  the  first  century, 


\ 


246  DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRIXITY. 

commencing  at  the  first,  and  extending  to  the  assembling 
of  the  Xicene  council.  He  quotes  Mosheira,  and  says, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  received  its  finishing 
touch  about  this  time.  Xow  this  expression  merely 
referred  to  some  difiering  views  that  prevailed  —  ques- 
tions that  arose  out  of  this — they  not  yet  being  projx^rly 
informed ;  and  it  was  thus  that  the  doctrine  was  oflicially 
and  authoritatively  settled  in  favor  of  the  Trinity ;  and 
this  is  what  he  means  by  receiving  its  finishing  touch. 
My  brother  thinks,  Gregory  is  not  respectable  authority. 
Does  he  ?  I  will  not  say  that  the  authorities  quoted  by 
him  are  not  respectable.  I  have  here  a  respectable 
authority,  I  believe,  the  Rev.  John  Broum,  the  author  of 
the  Bible  Dictionary.  My  brother  has  not  relieved  him- 
self of  his  difficulty  about  three  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
constituting  the  Trinity,  and  composing  the  one  living 
and  true  God  of  the  Bible,  in  whom  we  profess  faith, 
and  contends  we  maintain  the  idea  of  three  separate  and 
distinct  heings  /  a  thing  which  has  not  once  been  ad- 
vanced by  his  opponent  during  the  discussion.  I  have 
continually  insisted  that  there  is  only  one  God,  in  es- 
sence, power,  and  glory ;  yet  he  will  try  to  put  words  in 
my  mouth  that  I  never  uttered,  and  that  I  would  not 
permit  to  pass  my  lips ;  it  is  that  which  cometh  out  of 
man  that  polluteth  him. 

I  allow  my  brother  credit  for  believing  in  one  great 
God,  and  one  inferior  Saviour,  who,  in  heaven  sits,  by 
some  means,  on  the  right  hand  of  his  father.  He  has 
admitted  that  the  Son  does  not  possess  the  essential  ele- 
ment of  divine  nature. 

I  pressed  him.  in  my  last  remarks,  to  know  whether 
he  was  human,  divine,  or  angelic.  To  no  one  question 
does  he  deign  to  reply ;  yet  he  pleads  with  the  audience 
that  his  arguments  have  not  been  answered.  His  argu- 
ments have  been  quotations  from  Trinitarian  divines.  I 
differ  from  them  on  some  points.  I  differ  from  Watson 
on  the  eternal  Sonship,  who  assumes  that  Christ  is  eter- 
nal JSon;  that  the  same  person  was  made  flesh,  and  came 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


24T 


to  dwell  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glor}\  I  ask  my 
friend  to  tell  me  wliat  Christ  is  ?  I  believe  him  to  bo 
the  very  eternal  God,  and  very  man  ;  I  believe  the  eter- 
nal God  to  be  united  in  one  person  in  Jesus  Christ, 
with  the  very  man  ;  and  that  tiiis  very  God  and  very 
man  is  one  person — the  second  person  in  the  Trinity — 
equal  in  substance,  power,  glory,  and  eternity ;  as  such, 
he  possesses  all  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature,  such 
as  omniscience,  omnipresence,  eternity,  and  al  mighti- 
ness ;  he  possesses  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth ;  he  is 
the  source  of  light,  unto  every  being  that  exists — from 
the  tallest  archangel  to  the  humblest  of  God's  creatures ; 
he  is  the  -fountain  of  life  to  the  innumerable  millions 
of  God's  elect,  who  have  washed  their  robes  and  made 
them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb — who  are  before 
his  throne  worshiping  him  day  and  night;  he  is  the 
author  of  life  to  all  creatures,  that  inhabit  all  worlds, 
whether  great  or  small — from  the  mightiest  creature  that 
exists  upon  the  face  of  the  earth,  to  the  feeblest  animalcule 
that  is  indiscernible  to  the  natural  eye.  My  opponent 
is  here  to  prove  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  set 
forth  in  the  Discipline,  with  regard  to  the  equality  of  the 
Son  with  the  Father,  in  power,  glory,  and  eternity,  is  con- 
trary to  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  this  is  what  he 
is  here  to  prove,  and  not  whether  Clarke  and  Machiight 
agree,  and  Neander  and  Mosheim  may  be  pleased  to 
assert.  I  assume,  that  the  sacrifice  which  Jesus  Christ 
made,  was  a  sacrifice  of  a  perfect  human  nature. 

I  offered,  in  my  previous  remarks,  some  explanation  of 
the  terms  finite,  and  infinite,  I  will  briefiy  repeat  it. 
The  word  finite  is,  accordingly,  applied  to  any  thing 
which  comes  to  an  end  —  these  are  finite  things;  all  the 
materials  connected  with  this  world  are  finite,  with  every 
particle  of  matter  that  is  destructible.  As  to  future  exist- 
ence, men  and  angels  are  not  finite,  they  are  all  infinite. 
There  was  a  time,  when  angels  did  not  exist ;  there  was 
a  time,  when  they  began  their  existence  ;  but  there  will 
be  no  time,  in  the  future,  when  angels  will  not  exist,  so 


248 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


there  is  no  man  that  ever  existed,  that  will  cease  to 
exist.  Saul  of  Tarsus,  Isaac  Newton^  and  the  humblest 
slave  that  crouches  beneath  the  lash  of  his  tyrant  master, 
shall  live,  when  the  sun  itself  grows  dim  with  age.  There 
is  no  being,  however  exalted,  or  humble,  that  will  not 
live  to  witness  the  destruction  of  time,  when  time  itself 
shall  be  dissolved  in  the  boundless  ocean  of  eternity. 
Christ,  in  his  human  nature,  was  suited  to  be  a  com- 
panion of  finite  man.  During  his  sojourn  on  earth,  he 
''was  a  man  of  sorrows,  and  acquainted  with  grief,"  that 
he  might  accomplish  the  work  of  man's  redemption, 
"  for  without  the  shedding  of  blood,  there  is  no  redemp- 
tion." 

Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  his  divine  nature,  has  lived 
from  all  eternity,  with  the  Father:  "In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the 
Word  was  God."  In  his  human  nature,  he  lays  hold 
upon  the  essential  element  of  our  nature,  and  is,  there- 
fore, qualified  to  be  our  Redeemer,  and  is  able  to  raise  to 
heaven  our  wretched,  staggering,  and  ruined  world,  if 
they  would  accept  the  terms  of  salvation  that  he  has 
provided.  He  shall  give  salvation  to  his  people,  and 
they  shall  sit  down  with  him  on  his  throne,  as  he  has 
overcome  and  sat  down  with  his  Father. 

He  wishes  to  know,  with  regard  to  our  worship  of 
Christ,  whether  we  will  worship  the  Christ  that  was 
upon  the  cross.  We  have  but  one  Christ,  one  undivided 
Saviour.  In  Jesus  Christ,  the  humanity  was  attached  to 
the  divinity;  it  is  the  union  of  two  natures  in  one  per- 
son. We  have  one  Christ,  very  God  and  very  man  ; 
this  Christ  we  worship,  as  the  proper  object  of  our  faith. 
Ahram  worshiped  him ;  he  was  the  star  of  promise  that 
lighted  the  way  of  the  faithful ;  it  was  upon  him  he  re- 
lied, looking  forward  to  his  coming — we  retrospectively 
to  the  past.  This  was  the  promise ;  the  Child  born  ;  the 
Son  given  ;  this  is  the  mighty  God ;  the  everlasting 
Father ;  the  Prince  of  Peace  ;  it  is  he  upon  whose  shoul- 
ders the  government  of  everlasting  mercy  shall  rest — 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


249 


mightier  than  Gahriel  himself,  who  flies  with  h'ghtning 
speed  to  execute  the  designs  of  God. 

So  Christ  possesses  infinite  power,  excellence,  and 
glory  in.  himself;  he  is  declared  to  be  the  Child  born, 
the  Son  of  God ;  but  this  is  in  relation  to  his  human 
nature ;  then  he  is  declared  to  be  the  mighty  God ;  the 
universal  Father;  the  Prince  of  Peace,  and  this  is  in  re- 
lation to  his  divine  nature.  We  can  not  properly  name 
God  ;  he  is  known  in  our  language  by  different  names  ; 
but  we  have  no  right  to  name  Jehovali — perhaps,  there 
is  no  one  name  which  can  adequately  express  the  per- 
fections of  the  author  of  universal  existence  ;  but  he  has 
seen  fit  to  ' make  a  revelation  through  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ ;  but  for  this  revelation,  we  must  have  been  left  in 
profound  ignorance,  as  are  many  within  the  world  at  the 
present  day.  My  brother  said  I  had  not  the  knowledge 
of  God  —  he  said  this  to  my  shame.  I  thank  God  I  am 
in  some  measure  in  the  light  of  his  word.  I  recognize 
him  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
and  I  find  the  truths  of  his  divine  word  corroborated, 
when  compared  with  the  objects  of  sense.  I  am  im- 
pressed like  the  psalmist,  "When  I  consider  the  heavens, 
the  work  of  thy  hands ;  the  moon,  and  the  stars,  which 
thou  hast  ordained,  what  is  man,  that  thou  art  mindful  of 
him,  or  the  Son  of  man,  that  thou  visitest  him."  I  take 
pleasure  in  reflecting,  that  he  who  made  tliese  mighty 
objects,  that  are  represented  to  our  senses,  has  conde- 
scended to  become  our  redeemer.  Now  the  Creator  is 
also  the  redeemer.  I  recognize  and  worship  Jesus 
Christ,  with  God  the  Father  as  one,  filling  the  ofiice  of 
the  second  person  in  the  Trinity,  and  1  regard  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  the  efiicient  agent  in  accomplishing  the  bene- 
volent designs  of  God,  throughout  the  universe.  I  may, 
perhaps,  be  allowed  to  represent  the  idea  of  the  Trinity, 
by  the  use  of  a  figure  from  the  world  of  nature.  I  use 
it,  however,  with  some  qualification,  for  it  falls  infinitely 
short  of  illustrating  the  great  truth — for  who  can  illustrate 
that  which  is  infinite  ?   It  must  be  so  to  all  finite  minds ; 


250 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


take,  for  example,  VMter  in  its  three  conditions,  as  it  ap- 
pears  in  its  three  forms  of  water,  snow,  and  ice  —  under 
all  the  circumstances,  their  essential  elements  are  un- 
changed ;  it  is  now  water,  then  snow,  then  it  is  ice, 
although  known  under  the  signification  of  water,  snow, 
and  ice,  yet  it  is  capable  of  being  resolved  into  one  and 
the  same  substance.  Thus  I  hold  that  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  are  equal  in  every  essential  principle 
of  their  being  ;  that  they  possess  all  the  divine  attributes  ; 
hence,  they  are  one  God  —  and  this  is  the  only  God  I 
know  and  worship ;  the  only  God  that  I  recognize,  or 
that  we  are  commanded  to  worship. 

The  angel  that  came  down  to  the  Isle  of  Patmos.  and 
that  appeared  to  John,  refused  worship.  Angels  came 
to  Abraham,  but  worship  was  never  allowed  to  be  paid 
to  them,  or  any  inferior  creature.  God  will  not  allow  it. 
He  is  a  jealous  God.  But  I  would  earnestly  desire  your 
enlightenment,  my  brother,  not  that  I  wish  to  copy  your 
manner.  I  would  like  to  be  able,  in  a  forcible  manner, 
to  show  you  the  obligations  you  are  under  to  worship 
Christ.  I  do  it  because  of  the  importance  of  admitting 
the  equality  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  in  one 
person — one  undivided  God. 

When  the  sick  man  came  to  Jesus,  he  said,  "  Take  up 
thy  bed  and  walk."  Christ's  name  was  sufficient  hitherto; 
I  therefore  assume  that  Christ  has  infinite  power.  He 
further  proclaimed,  Thy  sins,  which  were  many,  are  all 
forgiven  thee."  When  the  Jews  questioned  concerning 
him,  he  said,  "  The  Son  of  man  hath  power  on  earth  to 
forgive  sins."  I  assume,  therefore,  that  Christ  is  a 
proper  object  of  worship.  There  can  be  no  such  thing 
as  a  conflict  in  the  Divine  mind.  They  are  one  in 
substance,  and  can  not  disagree ;  one  in  power,  and 
can  not  disagree  ;  one  in  glory,  and  can  not  disagree  ;  for 
we  are  commanded  to  honor  the  Son  as  we  honor  the 
Father.  Hence,  if  I  honor  not  the  Son  as  the  Father,  I 
honor  not  God.  Hence  I  enjoin  you  all  to  worship 
Christ,  not  as  a  mere  man ;  do  not  worship  him  as  some 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


251 


inferior  being,  for  no  such  inferior  Jesus  is  known  in 
Leaven. 

Mr  Summekbell's  Seventeenth  address : 

Kind  Friends — I  desire  to  call  especial  attention  to  the 
style  of  my  brother,  in  replying  to  texts,  and  his  manner 
of  disposing  of  them.  Mark  xiii,  32.  Jesus  says  that 
he  does  not  know  the  date  of  the  end  of  the  world.  My 
brother  replies,  by  endeavoring  to  prove  that  he  does. 
John  xi,  15.  "  I  am  glad  that  1  was  not  there."  He 
replies,  by  roundly  asserting  that  he  was  there — that  he 
was  everywhere.  1  Cor.  xv,  34.  "All  things  are  put 
under  him,"  &c.  My  brother  replies,  wittily,  that  unless 
God  was  put  under  him  all  must  mean  part,  and  disputes 
the  fact.  On  John  xvii,  3,  where  Jesus  says  that  his 
Father  is  the  only  true  God,  brother  Flood  says,  that  the 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  just  as  much  the  true  God  as  the 
Father.  1  Cor.  viii,  6,  ''But  to  us  there  is  but  one 
God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  in  him ; 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and 
we  by  him."  This  he  can  not  be  prevailed  upon  to 
touch.  To  Eph.  iv,  4-8,  where  the  Father  is  said  to  be 
over  both  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  my  brother  makes  no 
reply  at  all.  Now  these  texts,  with  thousands  of  others, 
are  capable  of  no  explanation,  in  accordance  with  my 
brother's  creed,  or  Constitution  and  Discipline,  and  he 
knows  it.  This  is  the  reason,  that  instead  of  answering 
me,  he  barely  objects  that  he  does  not  believe  that  God  is 
seated  on  a  throne,  (Rev.  v,)  or  that  the  Lamb  took  the 
book  out  of  his  riglit  hand.  He  objects  to  my  quoting 
his  own  authorities ;  evades  over  twenty-two  cardinal 
difficulties  in  his  theory,  and  after  I  have  cited  him  to 
over  thirteen  thousand  texts,  reading,  and  giving  him 
chapter  and  verse  for  over  five  hundred  of  them,  he  begs 
the  question  by  saying  that  he  believes  in  one  God  I 
And  when  I  press  him  with  his  own  authors,  who  aban- 
don nearly  every  position  taken  by  him,  as  untenable,  he 
declares  that  he  cares  not  for  the  hest  of  them.  Yery 


252 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


well ;  I  knew  that  he  would  come  to  that.  Were  they 
truly  orthodox,  they  would  agree  better,  but  error  and 
contradiction  are  inseparable. 

My  brother  in  one  breath  confesses  the  Eternal  Son^ 
and  in  the  next  denies  it.  I  want  him,  once  for  all,  to 
tell  us,  if  he  believes  the  Bible,  that  God  had  a  Son  in 
eternity,  by  whom  he  made  the  worlds.  Heb.  i,  1.  Now 
])rother  don't  dodge  the  point,  but  explain  yourself.  My 
brother  is  like,  they  say,  Arius  was,  professing  to  honor 
Christ  by  collecting  a  great  many  high-sounding  titles, 
while  he  believed  him  to  be  a  mere  creature ;  so  ray 
brother  believes  the  Son  only  eighteen  hundred  years  old, 
yet  calls  him  Jehovah,  &c.  One  mistake  my  brother 
makes  is,  that  in  speaking  of  the  greatness  of  the  Son  of 
God,  he  tries  to  forget  that  we  hold  that  he  has  received 
a  name  which  is  above  every  name^  and  is  worthy  of  all 
those  honors  because  he  is  God''s  Son.  Now  he  should 
show  that  if  God  had  a  Son  in  eternity^  (which  he  seems 
to  deny,)  that  that  Son  of  God  could  not  be  thus  great 
by  the  union  of  God  with  him^  as  well  as  my  brother's 
u  ^^y,y  'f^ian.'^''  Attend  to  this  point,  brother.  Trinitari- 
ans and  Socinians  alike,  have  but  one  God,  as  their 
creeds  teach,  and  one  man — while  the  Christians  have 
God,  and  the  Son  of  God  for  Mediator— and  also  what 
my  opponent  calls  the  human  body.  You  see,  to  those 
for  whom  one  God,  the  Father,  is  sufficient,  my  brother's 
work  of  creating  another  is  superfluous,  while  by  making 
the  Supreme  God  of  the  Son,  he  destroys  the  Divine 
Mediator,  while  he  adds  nothing  to  God. 

My  brother  has  several  times  intimated  that  1  did  not 
tell  you  what  I  believed  about  the  Saviour.  lie  does  not 
seem  to  perceive  any  meaning  in  the  words  ''^Son  of 
Gody  So  many,  he  says,  are  called  sons  of  God,  both 
angels  and  men  ;  but  my  brother  should  remember  that 
the  same  is  true  of  God  and  other  names.  To  please  my 
brother,  I  will  say  again,  that  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  "  the  only  begotten  Son  "  of  the  living  God.,  by  whom 
■  God  made  the  worlds,  saves  the  world,  and  will  judge 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


263 


the  world.  And  since  my  brother  calls  this  ambiguous, 
I  here  invite  him  to  find  one  place  in  all  the  Bible  where 
any  other  person  is  called  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God ! 
Will  that  do  ?  The  truth  is.  my  friends,  my  brother  has 
rejected  the  doctrine  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and 
be  now  makes  this  ado  about  my  faith  to  divert  your 
attention  from  his  own  Eoraan  Catholic  creed.  The 
brother  need  not  be  alarmed  about  our  faith  ;  it  is  the 
best  in  all  the  world.  He  says  we  have  a  great  God  and 
a  little  God,  because  Christ,  a  very  few  times,  is  called 
God  in  the  Bible,  with  many  others.  But  being  called 
God  does  not  make  either  him  or  them  God.  Christ  is 
called  a  Lion,  a  Lamb,  a  Door,  a  Vine,  and  the  like ; 
yet  we  do  not  believe  that  he  is  literally  either.  We 
believe  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God.  We  have  no  great 
God  and  little  God.  We  did  not  receive  our  faith  from 
Wesley,  nor  the  Church  of  England,  nor  Germany,  nor 
Rome  ;  flesh  and  blood  revealed  it  not,  but  '*our  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."  Mat.  xvi.  17.  Our  faith  has  all 
the  promises ;  our  creed  is  the  Bible,  and  is  from  eighteen 
hundred  to  four  thousand  years  old.  Deny  our  doctrine, 
the  Bible,  and  what  is  their  creed  worth  ?  Deny  our 
God,  and  what  is  their  Trinity  worth  ?  Deny  our  Son  of 
God,  and  what  is  their  human  sacrifice  worth  ?  Deny 
our  conversion,  and  what  is  their  probation  woilh  ?  Deny 
the  Christian,  and  what  is  Methodist  Protestant  worth"^? 
Will  that  do,  brother  ?  If  it  won't,  I  will  at  any  proper 
time  meet  you  on  that  question,  and  affirm  on  my  faith 
to  your  heart's  content.  Be  it  remembered,  that  my 
brother,  though  he  will  not  confess  that  he  worships  a 
creature  as  God,  yet  if  he  worships  all  of  his  God, 
human  and  divine ;  all  of  his  Christ,  human  and  divine, 
and  he  intimates  that  he  does,  then  he  worships  very 
man,  a  creature,  as  God — God  Supreme^  and  proves 
himself  guilty  of  the  grossest  idolatry,  according  to  his 
own  theory. 

Now,  so  far  from  holding  the  Son  of  God  inferior  to  my 
brother's  Saviour,  we  hold  him  higher  than  they  hold  their 


254 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


God.  Tliey  think  that  if  God  gave  Christ  all  power  in 
heaven  and  in  earth,  that  this  would  include  all  the  power 
God  possessed,  and  consequently,  God  would  cease  to 
exist.  Now  we  believe  that  the  Son  of  God  received  all 
this  power  in  addition  to  power  before  possessed,  and  is, 
consequently,  greater  in  power  than  they  hold  their  God ; 
while  we  regard  the  Father  as  possessing  unbounded 
power,  unlimited  by  heaven,  earth,  or  any  other  bounds. 
Thus  much  for  Christ's  power.  As  to  his  goodness,  we 
regard  his  character  so  sacred,  that  when  he  says,  "I 
came  out  from  God,"  we  believe  him ;  when  he  says, 
''My  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  we  believe  him  ;  when 
he  says,  '*  Ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  standing  on  the 
right  hand  of  God,"  we  believe  him  ;  when  he  says,  "I 
can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing,"  we  believe  him.  We 
do  not  think  it  idolatiy  to  worship  him ;  we  do  not  doubt 
his  power  to  save  us  ;  we  do  not  doubt  his  faithfulness  ; 
we  do  not  call  him.  ^^very  man — -perfect  Tmmanity ^"^ 
good  as  Adam;  but  THE  ONLY  BEGOTTEN  SON 
OF  THE  LIVING  GOD.  But  when  Jesus  says,  "I 
came  out  from  God,"  my  brother  don't  believe  it.  When 
he  says,  "All  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is  given  unto 
him,"  my  brother  does  not  believe  it.    When  he  says. 

My  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  my  brother  does  not  be- 
lieve it.  He  says,  if  Christ  received  all  power,  he  can 
not  trust  him.  I  warn  you  not  to  trust  him^  if  he  can 
not  trust  his  Saviour.  His  reverend  brethren  say,  if  he 
was  not  the  eternal  God,  the  Jews  did  well  to  crucify 
him.  as  a  noted  impostor,  not  worthy  a  name  in  history. 

My  brother  says,  that  Jesus  was  very  God  and  very 
man,  and  yet  only  one  person.  I  will  now  present  an  ar- 
gument on  the  two  natures  on  the  cross,  and  see  whether 
he  will  abandon  his  Christ  or  his  creed. 

If,  as  my  brother  says,  Jesus  and  God  were  both  in  one 
Christ,  and  only  constituted  one  person  ;  then,  if  God  is 
a  person,  (and  if  not,  my  brother  falls  into  Atheism) 
when  God  left  Jesus  to  die  on  the  cross,  then  one  person 
left,  (but  as  only  one  pei*son  was  there,)  and  all  the  per- 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


255 


son  left  the  cross,  so  that  there  was  no  person  remaining 
on  the  cross — no  pei*son  died ;  no  pei-son  was  buried ;  no 
person  rose ;  "  our  faith  is  vain — we  are  yet  in  our  sins 
and  those  who  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ,  have  perished  ; 
and  my  brother  thus  destroys  the  whole  plan  of  our  sal- 
vation. 

My  brother  objects  to  my  calling  his  three  persons, 
three  Gods  ;  but  if  they  have  all  the  infinite  attributes, 
why  are  they  not  three  Gods  ?  what  do  they  lack  to  con- 
stitute them  Gods  ?  Wherein  do  they  differ  from  tkree 
Gods  f  If  not  three  Gods,  what  are  they  ?  Persons  ? 
So  are  men,  persons  ;  and  three  men  would  not  make  one 
God.  What  are  they?  Spirits!  But  so  are  angels; 
yet  three  angels  would  not  make  one  God.  What  are 
they  ?  If  not  three  men,  nor  three  angels,  to  what  class 
of  intelligences  do  they  belong  ?  They  are  not  three  sons 
of  God  ;  where  will  my  brother  class  them  ?  K  I  were 
to  speak  of  three  persons,  and  say  that  they  are  neither 
three  sons  of  God,  three  angels,  nor  three  men,  and  re- 
fused to  tell  what  three  they  were,  would  you  not  say 
that  I  was  avoiding  the  issue  ?  Gen.  i,  1,  "  the  Gods 
my  brother  says,  and  gives  Watson  for  his  authority, 
"jfiVMm,  the  Gods;^^  let  my  brother  then,  no  more 
deny  that  he  has  Gods,  and  has  given  up  the  first  article 
of  his  Constitution  and  Discipline  entirely,  which  says, 
that  there  is  but  one  God. 

My  brother  said,  that  the  council  of  Constantinople, 
(which  Gregory  Nazianzen  compares,  Gib.  iii,  79,  to 
wasps,  magpies,  cranes,  and  geese,)  only  settled  the  doc- 
trine of  the  essential  Trinity,  instead  of  giving  it  the  finish- 
ing touch  ;  but  I  proved  to  him  that  the  Trinity  was  not 
perfected  as  to  the  procession  (?)  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  until 
A.  D.,  638.  Mosheim  i,  224.  I  want  my  brother  to 
answer  this.  He  inti*oduced  John  Brown,  ex  parte  evi- 
dence, of  no  authority  on  the  question. 

My  friend  objected  to  my  saying,  that  he  has  Gods,  or 
three  Gods ;  and  yet,  again  insists  on  translating  Elohim 
the  ''Gods."    I  ask  my  brother  to  tell  us  how  many  it 


256 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITY. 


takes  to  make  it  ]^roper  to  call  them  Gods  ?  I  hope  my 
brotlier  will  explain  again,  the  explanation  that  the  word 
means  Gods,  and  he  will  call  it  Gods;  but  that  he  does 
not  raean  Gods,  will  not  do. 

My  friend,  after  denying  that  Christ  could  be  eternal 
as  the  Son  of  God,  now  says,  that  as  man  will  not  be 
annihilated,  he  is,  in  some  sense,  eternal ;  so  that  he  has 
untold  (?)  millions  of  eternals.  Yet  he  has  nothing  to 
atone  God,  and  pay  an  infinite  demand,  but  a  perfect 
human  sacrifice,  good  as  Adam.  But  my  brother  has 
never  yet  explained  this  in  connection  with  Clarke,  with 
whom  he  agrees,  who  says  that  God  will  no  more  accept 
of  man's  blood  in  sacrifice,  than  swine's  blood.  I  urge 
my  brother's  attention  to  this.    2  Sam.  xxi,  10. 

He  still  urged,  that  Is.  ix,  6,  in  opposition  to  all  the 
Trinitarian  authorities  I  produced,  should  be  understood 
as  making  the  cliild  born,  the  human  nature;  and  that 
the  Mighty  God,  {al  gihhor)  the  same  as  Gabriel,  the 
name  of  the  angel,  meant  the  divine  nature — thus  teach- 
ing Socinianism. 

His  quotation  from  Clarke,  on  Genesis  i,  is  an  effort 
of  the  author  to  sustain  his  creed.  Clarke  traces  Elohim 
back  to  the  Arabic,  where  he  thinks  the  root  is  n^N  {alah) 
in  Arabic,  with  the  "  {yod)  dropped,  and  the  h  {lamed) 
doubled.  He  then  goes  to  alaha^  but  nowhere  in  all 
this,  does  he  find  proof,  that  any  considered  El,  Elohim^ 
Alohirn,  Al,  Alah,  or  Allah  as  meaning  more  than  one ; 
but  rather,  all  idea  of  plurality  runs  out. 

Trinitarians  have  long  taught  and  preached  against 
humanity  being  a  sufficient  sacrifice  to  atone  divinity, 
and  denounced  us  as  Socinians ;  and  asserted  that  a  human 
Saviour,  or  any  less  than  God,  was  unworthy  of  trust. 
Yet  it  is  now  clear  to  all,  that  we  have  a  divine  Saviour ; 
"while  they  have  no  more  than  the  Socinian.  Now  is  the 
time  to  demonstrate  it  if  they  have.  Both  Socinians  and 
Trinitarians  admit  one  God.  and  but  one ;  and  one  man 
beside  for  a  sacrifice  and  mediator,  and  but  one.  Both  ad- 
mit that  the  Mighty  God  dwelt  in  the  man  Jesus.  Both 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  257 

admit  tliat  the  man  was  in  close  union  with,  and  sancti- 
fied by,  the  divine  nature.    But  the  Trinitarian  starts  off 
from  the  Socinian,  with  the  withering  exclamation,  that 
a  human  sacrifice  is  not  sufficient.    He  then  attempts  to 
prove  the  Deity  of  Christ ;  but  not  the  Christ  which  was 
Been,  and  suffered ;  not  the  Christ  who  bled  and  died ; 
but  some  imaginary,  invisible  Christ  or  nature  which  was 
in  that  Christ.    And  after  traveling  all  around  the  theo- 
logical circle,  multiplying  the  divine  nature  without 
either  increasing  the  deity  or  changing  the  sacrifice,  he 
meets  the  Socinian  just  where  he  left  him,  with  but  one 
God,  and  one  human  sacrifice.    The  Christians  alone, 
hold  to  a  divine  sacrifice.    My  brother  compares  God  to 
water,  ice,  and  snow,  three  conditions  of  water — a  cold, 
watery  argument — but  not  applicable.  The  Trinity  is  not 
three  conditions  of  God,  nor  is  Jesus  a  condition  of  God. 
John  the  Baptist  (John  i,  34,)  said,  "I  saw  and  bare 
record,  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God."    The  evil  spirits 
said,  Matt,  viii,  29,  "  We  know  thee,  who  thou  art,  the 
Christ  the  Son  of  God."    The  centurion  exclaimed,  Mark 
XV,  39,  "Of  a  truth  this  is  the  Son  of  God."  Nathaniel 
said,  John  i,  49,  "Thou  art  the  Son  of  God."  Jesus 
said,  John  x,  34,  "I  said  I  am  the  Son  of  God."  God 
himself  said,  Matt,  iii,  17,  "This  is  my  beloved  Son." 
He  is  called,  God^s  oum  Son — God's  only  hegotten  Son 
—  God's  icell-heloved  Son — the  Son  of  the  living  God  ; 
language  never  used  of  any  other  being  in  the  universe. 
It  would  not  do  to  call  God  the  beloved  Son  of  God. 
"And  to  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time,  thou 
art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee  ? "  Heb.  i,  5. 
No  man  is  Christ  the  Lord.    Only  the  Son  of  God  is 
of  God.   Not  the  supreme  God,  but  the  Son  of  God,  Matt, 
xvi,  16 ;  is  the  form  of  God,  Philip,  ii,  6 ;  the  image  of 
God,  Heb.  i,  3;  the  power  of  God,  1  Cor.  i,  24;  the 
wisdom  of  God,  1  Cor.  i,  24  ;  the  word  of  God,  Eev.  xix, 
13 ;  the  servant  of  God,  Matt,  xii,  18  ;  elect  of  God,  Is. 
xlii,  1 ;  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  Acts  vii,  55 ;  anointed 
of  God,  Acts  ii,  36 ;  ordained  of  God,  Acts  xvii,  31 ; 
22 


258 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


appointed  of  God,  Heb.  iii,  1 ;  High-priest  of  God,  Heb. 
V,  10.  So  also,  how  could  he  come  out  from  God  ? — go 
back  to  God  ?  How  can  Jesus  be  at  God's  right  hand, 
and  yet  be  that  God  at  whose  right  hand  he  is?  I  want 
my  brother  to  explain  this.  I  want  him  also  to  demon- 
strate to  us,  how  it  was  such  a  great  manifestation  of 
God's  love  to  us,  to  give  perfect  humanity  to  die  for  us  ? 
God  professes  to  manifest  his  love  by  the  gift  of  his  Son ; 
but  how  does  this  prove  God's  love,  if  that  Son  is  nothing 
but  a  "  very  man,"  even  though  that  human  being  be 
"(25  perfect  as  Adam  f  "  It  is  still  a  man.  I  have  men- 
tioned that  Dr.  Watts,  the  Christian  poet,  abandond  the 
Trinity  in  his  maturer  years,  and  would  have  destroyed 
those  Trinitarian  doxologies  they  love  to  sing,  but  that  he 
had  sold  the  copyright  of  his  book.  Let  me  read  you  a 
prayer  of  his  about  the  Trinity.  It  is  one  of  the  best 
prayers  ever  written. 

Dr.  Watts'^  Prayer. — "  Dear  and  blessed  God,  hadst 
thou  been  pleased  in  any  one  plain  Scripture  to  have  in- 
formed me,  which  of  the  different  opinions  about  the 
holy  Trinity,  among  the  contending  parties  of  Christians, 
had  been  true,  thou  knowest  with  how  much  zeal,  satis- 
faction, and  joy,  my  unbiased  heart  would  have  opened 
itself  to  receive  and  embrace  the  divine  discovery. 
Hadst  thou  told  me  plainly,  in  any  single  text,  that  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  are  three  real,  distinct  per- 
sons, in  th}^  divine  nature,  I  had  never  suffered  myself 
to  be  bewildered  in  so  many  doubts,  nor  embarrassed 
with  so  many  strong  fears  of  assenting  to  the  mere  in- 
ventions of  men,  instead  of  divine  doctrine  ;  but  I  should 
have  humbly,  and  immediately  accepted  thy  words,  so 
far  as  it  was  possible  for  me  to  understand  them,  as  the 
only  rule  of  my  faith ;  for  hadst  thou  been  pleased  so  to 
express  and  include  this  proposition  in  the  several  scat- 
tered parts  of  thy  book,  from  whence  my  reason  and  con- 
science might,  with  ease,  find  out,  and  with  certainty 
infer  this  doctrine,  I  should  have  joyfully  employed  all 
piy  reasoning  powers,  with  their  utmost  skill  and  activity. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


259 


to  have  found  out  this  inference,  and  ingrafted  it  into 
my  soul.  Thou  has  taught  me,  holy  Father,  by  thy  pro- 
phets, that  the  way  of  holiness  in  the  times  of  the  Gospel, 
or  under  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  shall  be  a  high- 
way, a  plain  and  easy  path,  so  that  the  wajiaring  man, 
or  the  stranger,  though  a  fool,  shall  not  err  therein  ;  and 
thou  hast  called  the  poor  and  the  ignorant,  the  mean  and 
foolish  things  of  this  world,  to  the  knowledge  of  thyself 
and  thy  Son,  and  taught  them  to  receive  and  partake  of 
the  salvation  thou  hast  provided.  But  how  can  such 
weak  creatures  ever  take  in  so  strange,  so  difficult,  and 
so  abstruse  a  doctrine  as  this,  in  the  explication  and  de- 
fense whereof,  multitudes  of  men,  even  men  of  learning 
and  piety,  have  lost  themselves  in  infinite  subtil  ties  of 
dispute  and  endless  mazes  of  darkness  ?  And  can  this 
sti-ange  and  perplexing  notion  of  three  real  persons, 
going  to  make  up  one  true  God,  be  so  necessary  and  so 
impoiiant  a  part  of  that  Christian  doctrine,  which  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  New,  is  represented  as  so  plain 
and  so  easy,  evtn  to  the  meanest  undei-standing  !" 

Here  you  see  that  this  great  poet,  in  his  latter  years, 
discarded  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  I  will  now  present 
some  more  texts,  to  prove  that  Jesus  is  not  the  supreme 
God,  which  I  want  my  brother  to  answer. 

1  Cor.  viii,  6,  "  To  us  there  is  but  one  God  the  Father 
hence  there  is  no  other  God. 

Acts  ii,  22,  Jesus  was  "  approved  of  God,  by  signs 
and  wonders,  which  God  did  by  him hence  he  was  not 
the  God  who  approved  him. 

John  xiv,  2S,  Jesus  positively  declares,  "  My  father  is 
greater  than  I hence,  he  is  not  the  supreme  God. 

John  xiv,  10,  The  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he 
doeth  the  works but  the  supreme  God  could  not  say  this. 

John  vii,  16,  My  doctrine  is  not  mine,  but  his  that 
Bent  me l3ut  of  the  supreme  God,  this  is  not  true. 

John  V,  26,  "The  Father  hath  given  the  Son  author- 
ity;" but  no  Father  could  give  the  supreme  God  au- 
thority. 


260 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


Matt.  XX,  23,  "  To  sit  at  my  right  hand,  &c.,  is  not 
mine  to  give,  but  for  whom  it  is  prepared  of  mv  Father." 

1  Cor.  viii,  6,  Christ  is  distinguished  from  God,  as  the 
one  "  by  whom  are  all  things,"  in  contradistinction  from 
God,    of  whom  are  all  things." 

John  V,  57,  Jesus  says  :  I  live  by  the  Father  ;"  but 
God  is  self-existent,  and  lives  hy  no  one. 

John  viii,  IT,  "I  am  one  who  beareth  witness  of  my- 
self, and  the  Father  that  sent  me,  beareth  witness  of  me 
but  God  has  no  Father  to  bear  witness  of  him. 

Matt,  iii,  17,  God  says :  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son ;" 
but  the  supreme  God  is  no  one's  Son. 

1  John  iv,  l-i,  "  We  have  seen,  and  do  testify  that  the 
Father  sent  the  Son ;"  but  no  one  ever  sent  God. 

Heb.  iii,  1,  2,  "  Jesus  who  is  faithful  to  him  who  ap- 
pointed him  ;"  but  no  one  ever  appointed  God. 

Eom.  viii,  34,  "Who  is  ever  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 
who  also  maketh  intercession  for  us ;"  but  God  is  not  at 
God's  right  hand  interceding  for  us. 

Jesus  Christ  positively  disclaims  the  divine  attribute 
of  omniscience.  "  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no 
man,  no,  not  the  angels  of  heaven,  neither  the  Son^''  "but 
the  Father  only^    Mark  xiii,  32  ;  Matt,  xxiv,  36. 

Jesus  Christ  prayed  to  God.  Luke  xvi,  12.  We  have 
a  specimen  of  his  prayers:  John  xvii,  5.  "O  Father, 
glorify  thou  me,  with  thy  own  self,  with  the  glory  I  had 
with  thee  before  the  world  was."  And  on  the  cross,  he 
cried,  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  i\\o\\ forsaken  me." 
Matt,  xxviii,  46.  Could  these  prayei-s  and  exclamations 
be  uttered  by  the  supreme  God  '{ 

Supreme  worship,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is 
uniformly  paid,  not  to  Christ,  hut  to  God^  the  Father^ 
through  Christ.  "  I  thank  God  through  Jesus  Christ.'''' 
Eom.  vii,  25.  "  To  God  only  wise,  be  glory  throitgh 
Christ."    Eom.  xvi,  27. 

Christ  is  worshiped  as  the  Son,  and  "  Lamb  of  God." 
Heb.  i,  8,  and  Eev.  v,  13. 

Jesus  Christ  is  represented  by  the  Kew  Testament 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


261 


writers,  as  the  '-''Image  of  GodP  Col.  i,  15 ;  2  Cor. 
iv,  4.  Would  it  not  be  absurd  to  call  any  one  his  own 
image  f 

Jesus  Christ  is  called,  in  Scripture,  "  the  first  horn 
among  many  hrethrenP  Rom.  viii,  27.  But  the  su- 
preme God  has  no  brethren. 

Jesus  Christ  is  represented  as  receiving  commands 
from  the  Father.  "  The  Father  who  sent  me,  gave  me  a 
commandment;"  John  xii,  49;  but  no  one  can  com- 
mand God. 

The  Scriptures  teach  us,  that  God  the  Father  hath 
highly  exalted  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  given  him  a 
name  which  is  above  every  name ;"  Phil,  ii,  9 ;  but 
no  one  has  ever  highly  exalted  God. 

Mr.  Flood's  Seventeenth  reply : 

The  manner  in  which  my  brother  indulged  in  appeals, 
when  he  got  fairly  under-way,  is  rather  interesting. 
Several  times  during  the  discussion,  my  brother  seemed 
anxious  to  know  wliether  we  believed  the  divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ  received  any  part  of  the  atonement.  Such 
phraseology  we  have  never  employed.  And  he  inquired 
whether  we  believed  that  satisfaction  was  rendered  to  the 
divine  nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  well  as  to  the  Father 
and  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  This  language,  perhaps,  is  not 
acceptable.  "  How  much  more,"  says  the  apostle,  "  shall 
the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  who,  through  the  eternal 
Spirit,"  &c.,"  purge  your  conscience."  Here  the  apostle 
declares  that  Christ  offered  himself,  through  the  eternal 
Spirit,  without  spot,  to  God.  I  refer  him  to  Isaiah  liii, 
and  to  Gal.  iii,  ''Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse 
of  the  law."  Now,  we  inquire,  what  law,  the  law^  that 
was  violated  ?  the  law  of  God  ?  How  did  he  redeem  us  ? 
By  rendering  satisfaction  to  the  demands  of  that  law, 
fulfilling  that  law  in  our  room  and  stead.  "  I  came  to 
fulfill,"  &c.  Also,  Christ  as  God  received  satisfaction,  as 
stated  by  Dr.  Brown,  the  terms  used  are  applicable  to  the 
supreme  God,  and  equally  so  to  Jesus  Christ.  We 


262 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


invite  attention  to  Exodus  iii,  14,  "  And  God  said  unto 
Moses,  I  am  that  I  am ;  and  he  said,  Thus  shalt  thou  say 
unto  the  children  of  Israel,  I  Am  hath  sent  me  unto  you. 
God  said  moreover  unto  Moses,  Thus  shalt  thou  say 
unto  the  children  of  Israel,  the  Lord  God  of  your  Fathers, 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  hath 
sent  me  unto  you ;  this  is  my  name  for  ever,  and  this  is 
my  memorial  unto  all  generations."  Exodus  vi,  3. 
"  And  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
by  the  name  of  God  Almighty ;  but  by  my  name  Jehovah 
was  I  not  known  to  them."  We  invite  attention  to  Dr. 
Clarke  on  this  passage,  proving  Christ  is  this  "I  Am." 

Clarke,  Yol.  i.  Exodus  iii,  14,  15.  "'And  God  said 
unto  Moses,  I  am  that  I  am ;  and  he  said,  Thus  shalt 
thou  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  I  Am  hath  sent  me 
unto  you.  And  God  said  moreover  unto  Moses,  Thus 
shalt  thou  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  the  Lord  God 
of  your  fathers,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac, 
and  the  God  of  Jacob  hath  sent  me  unto  you ;  this  is 
my  name  for  ever,  and  this  is  my  memorial  unto  all  gen- 
erations.' Chap,  vi,  3,  '  And  I  appeared  unto  Abra- 
ham, unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  by  the  name  of  God 
Almighty ;  but  by  my  name  Jehovah  was  I  not  known  to 
them.'  '  By  the  name  of  God  Almighty,  El  Shaday^  God 
All-sufficient,  God  the  dispenser  or  pourer  out  of  gifts.' 
'  But  by  my  name  Jehovah  was  I  not  known  to  them ;' 
this  passage  has  been  a  sort  of  cntx  criticorura^  and  has 
been  variously  explained.  It  is  certain  that  the  name  Je- 
liovah  was  in  use  long  before  the  days  of  Abraliam.  See 
Gen.  ii,  4,  where  the  words,  Jehovah,  Elohim,  occur  as 
they  do  frequently  afterward  ;  and  see  Gen.  xv,  2,  where 
Abraham  expressly  addresses  him  by  the  name  Adonai^ 
Jehovah  ;  and  see  the  seventh  verse,  where  God  reveals 
himself  to  Abraham  by  this  very  name :  and  he  said,  I 
am  Jehovah  that  brought  thee  out  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees. 
How,  then,  can  it  be  said  that  by  his  name  Jehovah  he 
was  not  known  unto  them  ?  Several  answers  have  been 
given  to  this  question  ;  the  following  are  the  chief :  First, 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  263 

The  word  sliould  be  read  interrogatively,  for  the  negative 
particle  lo^  not^  has  this  power  often  in  Hebrew.  I  ap- 
peared unto  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  by  the  name  of 
God  Almighty  ;  and  by  my  name  Jehovah  was  I  not  also 
made  known  unto  them  ?  The  name  Jehovah,  was  not 
revealed  before  the  time  mentioned  here ;  for,  though  it 
occurs  so  frequently  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  that  book  was 
mitten  long  after  the  name  had  come  into  common  use. 
As  a  principal  characteristic  of  God,  Moses  employs  it  in 
his  history,  because  of  this  circumstance ;  so  that  when- 
ever it  appears  previously  to  this,  it  is  by  the  figure 
called  prolepsis  or  anticipative.  As  the  name  Jehovah 
signifies  existence,  it  may  be  understood  in  the  text  in 
question,  thus :  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  by  my  name  God  Almighty,  or  God  All-sufficient, 
having  all  power  to  do  all  good.  In  this  character  I 
made  a  covenant  with  them,  supported  by  great  and  glo- 
rious promises,  but  as  those  promises  had  respect  to  their 
posterity,  they  could  not  be  fulfilled  to  those  fathers ;  but 
now,  as  Jehovah,  I  am  about  to  give  existence  to  all 
those  promises  relative  to  your  support,  deliverance  from 
bondage,  and  your  consequent  settlement  in  the  promised 
land.  The  words  may  be  considered  as  used  compara- 
tively, though  God  did  appear  to  those  patriarchs  as 
Jehovah,  and  they  acknowledged  him  by  this  name  ;  yet  it 
was  but  comparatively  known  unto  them.  They  knew  no- 
thing of  the  power  and  goodness  of  God,  in  comparison 
with  what  the  Israelites  were  now  about  to  experience. 
I  believe  the  simple  meaning  is  this :  that  though  from 
the  beo;inninoj  the  name  Jehovah  was  known  as  one  of 
the  names  of  the  supreme  Being,  yet  what  it  really  im- 
plied they  did  not  know.  Et  Shaday^  God  All-sufficient, 
they  knew  well  by  the  continual  provision  he  made  for 
them,  and  the  constant  protection  he  afforded  them  ;  but 
the  name  Jehovah  is  particularly  to  be  referred  to  the 
accomplishment  of  promises  already  made ;  to  the  giving 
them  a  being,  and  thus  bringing  them  into  existence, 
which  could  not  have  been  done  in  the  order  of  his 


264 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


providence  sooner  than  here  specified.  This  name,  there- 
fore, in  its  power  and  supremacy,  was  not  known  unto 
them,  nor  fully  known  unto  their  descendants,  until  the 
deliverance  from  Egypt,  and  the  settlement  in  the  pro- 
mised land.  It  is  surely  possible  for  a  man  to  bear  the 
name  of  a  certain  office  or  dignity  before  he  fulfills  any 
of  its  functions.  King,  mayor,  alderman,  magistrate, 
constable,  may  be  borne  by  the  several  persons  to  whom 
they  legally  belong,  before  any  of  the  acts  peculiar  to 
those  offices  are  performed.  The  king,  acknowledged  as 
such  on  his  coronation,  is  known  to  be  such  by  his  legis- 
lative acts ;  the  civil  magistrate,  by  his  distribution  of 
justice,  and  issuing  warrants  for  the  apprehending  of  cul- 
prits; and  the  constable,  by  executing  those  warrants. 
All  these  were  known  to  have  their  respective  names ; 
but  the  exercise  of  their  powers  alone  shows  what  is  im- 
plied in  being  king,  magistrate,  or  constable.  Ex.  vi,  7, 
^  And  I  will  take  you  to  me  for  a  people,  and  I  will  be 
to  you  a  God :  and  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord 
your  God,  which  bringeth  you  out  from  under  the  bur- 
dens of  the  Egyptians.'  (Note.)  '  And  ye  shall  know 
that  I  am  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  your  God  ;  by  thus  fulfill- 
ing my  promises,  ye  shall  know  what  is  implied  in  my 
name.' " 

Here  the  Word,  according  to  this  learned  author,  re- 
lates to  him  who  is  possessed  of  self-existence,  and  is  all- 
sufficient  ;  and  who  is  to  fulfill  all  the  promises  that  are 
made,  respecting  the  redemption  of  the  human  race. 
"  Of  that  hour  knoweth  no  man  but  the  Father  only." 

Clark  says,  "  Where  this  language  is  applied  to  the 
Son  it  is  wanting  in  all  the  rest  of  the  evangelists,  and  he 
regards  it  as  spurious."  This  Arian  text  I  will  ofiset  with 
1  John  V,  7,  which  my  brother  modestly  said  was  a  Trinita- 
rian forgery.  He  says,  we  avoid  reference  to  Christ 
sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  How  often  will  my 
brother  require  me  to  return  to  this  sitting  at  the  right 
hand  ?  It  was  the  custom  of  Orientals,  that  he  ^y\\o  sat 
at  the  right  hand  at  meat  was  fii*st  in  honor  and  rank, 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY.  265 

and  the  one  on  the  left  was  second ;  and  it  was  in  view 
of  this  custom,  that  the  mother  of  the  two  disciples  asked 
this  favor  for  her  children.  I  press  my  brother,  to  know 
whether  this  is  a  literal  fact :  that  God  is  literally  seated 
somewhere  high  up  in  the  heaven.  Christ  being  at  the 
right  hand  of  God — is  in  the  immediate  favor  of  God — 
highest  in  the  favor  of  God  as  the  Eedeemer  of  our  race, 
and  intercessor  between  God  and  man — occupying  the 
highest  place  in  this  interesting  character.  If  in  Jesus 
resides  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,  I  would 
ask  how  it  is,  that  Jesus,  in  whom  dwells  all  the  fullness 
of  the  Godhead  bodily,  is  upon  the  right  hand  of  this 
God  ?  If  my  brother  will  explain  this  difficulty,  I  will 
nnravel  his.  I  should  like  to  know  if  God  has  a  right 
band,  literally,  and  Christ  occupies  the  literal  right  hand 
of  God  ?  He  refers  to  Hebrews — "  about  God  creating 
the  world  by  Christ " — and  wishes  to  know  whether  by 
his  Son  he  created  the  world  ?  I  have  stated  that  in  his 
Divine  nature  he  was  eternal .  The  apostle,  speaking  of 
him  as  the  begotten  of  the  Father,  speaks  of  him,  prop- 
erly, as  the  Son  of  God,  and  I  believe  in  him  as  the  Son 
of  God.  It  is  a  mere  quibble  with  regard  to  God  having 
a  Son.  He  is  one  person  in  the  blessed  Trinity — the 
Logos,  that  was  in  the  beginning — this  became  flesh  and 
dwelt  among  us  ;  he  is  entitled  to  the  title  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  his  humanity,  united  with  the  Divinity,  consti- 
tutes one  person.  My  brother  now  complains  of  my 
stamping  in  the  pulpit.  I  was  amused  at  my  brother 
clapping  his  hands,  and  thumping  the  pulpit.  I  have  a 
request  to  make,  brother.  I  hope  you  will  not  knock  this 
pulpit  down ;  for  I  want  a  place  to  stand  when  your  sys- 
tem falls.  He  tells  us  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  begotten 
Son  of  God.  Who  disputed  this  ?  He  is  now  just  as 
much  inclined  to  avoid  the  true  issue,  as  he  was  the 
first  day.  He  has  not  given  us  the  true  character  of  God, 
or  Christ,  from  the  commencement  of  the  debate  to  the 
end.  That  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  is  entertained 
by  all  Trinitarians.  He  goes  on  to  say,  that  our  creed  is 
23 


266 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


a  Roman  Catholic  creed.  Yery  courteous  in  my  brother, 
thus  to  come  forward  and  charge  us  with  havinc^  a  Roman 
Catholic  creed.  Hear  that  remark,  my  auditors,  and  say 
what  it  is  worth.  What  could  he  have  in  view  but  draw- 
ing, when  further  argument  failed,  the  Trinity  into  disre- 
pute ?  He  ought  to  know  that  true,  respectable  Protest- 
ant divines,  in  all  ages,  have  maintained  the  position  I 
contend  for;  he  so  admitted,  that  they  were  in  the 
majority — but  I  would  not  persecute  him  because  he  is 
in  the  minority ;  whereas  the  majority,  the  learned,  and 
God-fearing  of  all  generations,  stand  upon  this  great 
doctrine.  Are  they  found  occupying  the  views  of  my 
brother,  that  Christ  is  an  angel  or  man  ?  If  I  worship 
Christ  in  this  light,  as  a  creature,  then  I  am  an  idolater. 
I  have  no  right  to  worship  Jesus  Christ,  if  he  be  in  any 
sense  whatever,  in  the  Divine  nature,  inferior  to  God ; 
for  God  has  prohibited  all  such  worship,  pronouncing  it 
idolatry.  And  if  we  may  worship  one  creature,  we  may 
worship  any  creature  that  our  imagination  might  be 
directed  to.  My  brother  has  often  pressed  the  proposi- 
tion, that  in  having  a  human  nature  associated  wdth  the 
Divine,  I  am  an  idolater.  The  human  nature,  I  have 
informed  him,  is  the  medium  through  which  the  blessings 
of  Christ  should  flow  to  our  race ;  his  blood  redeemed 
us,  and  yet  he  does  not  apply  that  language  in  its 
full  literal  signification.  But  it  was  this  blood  of  the 
cross  which  was  identified  with  the  Divine  nature,  so 
that  God  might  be  just  and  the  justifier  of  all  those  that 
believe  in  him.  Now,  he  goes  on  to  speak  in  a  difierent 
manner,  to  what  he  has  done  for  a  day  or  two.  Again, 
my  brother  says,  "  You  take  our  doctrine  out  of  his,  and 
what  will  be  left  ?  Nothing  but  shell  and  chaff."  Now 
I  have  not  said  of  my  brother's  doctrine,  that  it  was  shell 
and  chafi*;  but  it  seems  to  me  his  doctrine  must  possess 
somewhat  of  the  nature  of  the  latter,  for  there  is  not 
sufficient  weight  in  it  to  be  brought  into  view.  He  has 
been  trying  for  a  number  of  days,  to  tell  us  that  he  is  the 
only  begotten  Son  of  God,  and  he  is  willing  to  defend 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


267 


this  doctrine — Ms  doctrine.  This  you  will  not  call 
begging  the  question,  will  you  ?  So  learned  a  man  as 
my  brother,  would  never  think  of  committing  a  logical 
blunder  of  this  kind.  He  says,  that  Christ  did  have 
all  power — all  power  in  heaven  and  all  power  on  earth, 
and  yet  that  more  power  than  all  that  was  given  him.  I 
would  like  to  know  where  that  power  existed,  if  he  had 
all  power  in  heaven  to  sustain  the  life  and  bless  infinitely 
the  world,  and  on  earth  to  sustain  the  laws  of  nature, 
and  all  power  necessary  to  preserve  everlasting  exist- 
ence ?  And-  yet,  he  says,  there  was  other  power,  that 
Christ,  a  creature  inferior  to  the  Father,  possessed. 

Here  is  the  absurdity  that  he  created  himself:  for  all 
things  were  made  by  him,  and  for  him,  and  without  him 
was  not  anything  made,  that  was  made ;  he  possessed  all 
power.  Then  he  charges  me  with  dodging  the  question. 
These  are  among  the  criticisms  I  have  received  from 
my  brother,  after  a  hard  day's  discussion.  Now,  if  this 
should  appear  in  a  book,  I  should  appear  to  be  tracing  my 
brother  for  ever  round  and  round,  over  the  same  ground ; 
this  is  the  only  reason  why  I  desire  that  it  should  not 
appear  in  print.  Any  one  may  judge,  what  may  be  ex- 
pected during  the  day  ;  if  you  wish  for  a  jolly  rout  of  it, 
I  will  try  to  be  in  your  neighborhood  :  do  the  work  you 
have  undertaken,  and  there  will  not  be  a  hair  between 
you  and  heaven.  He  stuck  up  a  book,  to  ihustrate  the 
Trinity ;  and  wanted  to  know  when  Christ  died,  and  God 
was  withdrawn,  whether  there  was  any  other  person  left 
on  the  cross  ?  As  the  divinity  withdrew,  the  unsupported 
humanity  sank  down  under  the  w^eight,  and  had  not  the 
divinity  withdrawn,  all  the  power  in  earth,  and  hell,  could 
not  have  taken  that  life.  See  Articles  of  Religion :  First, 
"There  is  but  one  living,  and  true  God  everlasting ;  with- 
out body  or  parts,  of  infinite  power,  wisdom,  and  good- 
ness ;  the  maker  and  preserver  of  all  things,  visible,  and 
invisible,  and  in  unity  of  this  Godhead,  there  are  three 
persons,  of  one  substance,  power,  and  eternity,  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost." 


268 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


Second,  "  The  Son,  who  is  the  Word  of  the  Father,  the 
very  and  eternal  God,  of  one  substance  with  the  Father, 
took  man's  nature  in  the  womb  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  so 
that  two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  that  is  to  say,  the 
Godhead,  and  manhood,  were  joined  together  in  one 
person,  never  to  be  divided  ;  whereof  is  one  Christ — very 
God,  and  very  man — who  truly  suffered ;  was  crucified, 
dead  and  buried,  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us,  and  to  be 
a  sacrifice,  not  only  for  original  guilt,  but  also  for  actual 
sins  of  men." 

He  cried,  it  is  finished ;  all  the  t^'pes  and  shadows 
that  had  pointed  to  him,  met  at  the  cross,  and  received 
their  final  consummation ;  he  became  a  sacrifice  under 
the  law  for  righteousness.  As  the  divine  nature  with- 
drew, the  human  nature  was  sanctified,  by  enduring  the 
agonies  of  the  cross.  I  assert  that  Christ  possessed  but 
one  person  in  his  divine  and  liuman  nature ;  he  is  one 
in  substance,  power,  and  eternity.  My  brother  is  not  for- 
tunate enough  to  see  the  proposition ;  indeed,  he  has 
never  made  the  discovery  of  his  own  proposition. 

Me.  Summerbell's  Eighteenth  address : 

Will  the  Moderators  please  to  read  the  proposition 
again : 

"Is  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  set  forth  in  the  Discipline  of 
the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  especially  -with  regard  to  the 
equality  of  Jesus  Christ  with  the  Father,  in  substance,  power, 
glory  and  eternity,  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  AVord  of  God  V 

My  brother  does  not  seem  to  like  my  close  argument 
this  morning,  and  I  was  afraid  that  he  would  not.  He 
quotes  something  about  satisfaction  being  rendered  by 
Jesus  to  the  divine  nature  of  Christ ;  let  him  find  this 
doctrine  in  the  Bible,  if  he  can.  If  he  will  refer  to  Is. 
liii,  4-6,  he  will  see  that  "by  his  stripes  ive  are  healed," 
not  God.  His  blood  purges  our  conscience  from  dead 
works,  to  serve  the  living  God.  What  satisfaction  is 
there  in  that  ?  That  is  the  Christian  doctrine ;  there 
is  nothing  said  about  satisfaction,  but  salvation.  What 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


269 


an  idea,  that  the  Son  of  God  should  die  to  render  him- 
self satisfaction  !  to  pay  himself !  for  my  brother  makes 
out  that  the  person  on  tlie  cross  died  to  pay,  and  to  satisfy 
himself.  Gal.  iii,  13,  reads:  "He  has  redeemed  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us." 
That  is  all  veiy  good  doctrine  ;  but  it  says  nothing  about 
satisfaction  to  God.  For  what  reason  does  he  wish  to 
go  ofl*  on  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  ?  I  suppose  he 
has  preached  a  good  sermon  on  that  subject,  and  now  ho 
wishes  to  turn  off  your  attention,  by  rehearsing  it,  and 
so  divert  your  minds  from  the  main  argument.  He 
quotes  Dr.  Brown  on  his  side,  but  what  authority  is  that 
to  me  ?  He  quotes,  "  I  Am  that  I  Am but  lie  does  not 
believe  that  the  Jesus  on  the  cross  was  the  "  I  Am  "  al- 
luded to.  Let  me  now  direct  your  attention  to  an  argu- 
ment, showing  from  the  Word  of  God,  that  you  can  not 
depend  upon  the  assumption,  that  wherever  the  word 
Lord,  in  small  capitals,  occurs  in  our  translation  of  the 
Old  Testament,  it  is  Jehovah  in  the  original. 

Gen.  XV,  7,  God  said  to  Abraham  :  I  am  the  Lord," 
i.  e.,  Jehovah^  if  that  assumption  be  correct ;  but  four 
hundred  years  after,  he  said  to  Moses,  Ex.  vi,  2,  3, By  my 
name  Jehovah  I  was  not  known  to  Abraham."  So  that 
nothing  is  more  certain,  than  that  no  dependence  is  to 
be  placed  upon  the  translation,  or  even  the  occurrence,  in 
the  original,  of  a  single  word.  My  brother  fails  in  this, 
as  in  every  thing  else.  He  cannot  succeed,  simply, 
because  the  creed  is  contrary  to  the  Bible.  Its  doctrine, 
its  discipline,  its  precepts  and  principles,  belong  to  a 
later  age.  How  wrong  then,  it  is,  to  call  them  orthodox. 
My  brother  says  that  there  is  not  a  hair  between  me  and 
heaven.  There  is  not  a  hair  between  him  and  a  worse 
place  than  heaven !  Perhaps  my  brother  would  prefer 
that  I  should  reply  to  his  wit ;  but  that  does  not  prove 
the  Trinity  !  He  says  that  I  would  baptize  in  the  name 
of  an  Lifiuence.  Oh  no  !  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 
I  only  proposed  that  he  had  letter  call  it  God's  Spirit- 
ual Influence,  than  to  call  it  the  third  person  in  the 


270 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


Trinity,  and  then  swing  it  beneath  the  throne,  as  a 
pendulum. 

You  see  what  my  brother  attempts  to  prove,  amounts 
to  nothing.  The  longer  he  disputes,  the  worse  he  is  off. 
His  doctrine  would  stand  more  fair  if  he  would  not  reply 
to  me  at  all;  for  if  he  attempts  to  reply  he  gets  into 
trouble,  from  which  he  finds  it  impossible  to  extricate 
himself.  He  feels  this  himself.  A  man  that  boasts  he 
has  all  the  literature  of  the  world  on  his  side,  as  to  doc- 
trines, beliefs,  &c.,  must  feel  himself  in  a  sad  dilemma 
to  get  along  as  poorly  as  my  opponent  does.  He  first 
admits  that  this  is  not  in  the  Bible,  and  then  that  that  is 
not  in  the  Bible.  First  he  says,  that  God  has  no  bod}"; 
and  then  that  God  has  a  body.  That  God  and  the  very 
man  are  one,  and  that  the}^  can  not  be  divided  ;  and  then 
that  they  were  divided  three  days  and  three  nights.  His 
own  authors  admit  that  his  chief  text  is  forged  ;  but  he 
sets  ofi'  an  admitted  Trinitarian  forgery  against  another 
Trinitarian  forgery,  by  charging  it  upon  the  Arians. 
What  does  Macknight  say  about  the  Arian  forging  ? 
Let  me  read:  "  Mill  saith,  o$  and  o  were  substituted  in 
place  of  the  true  reading,  notj  however,  by  the  Arians," 
&c.  Macknight,  on  1  Tim.  iii,  16,  Though  orthodox, 
does  not  accuse  the  Arians  of  the  forgery  of  this  text. 
My  brother  is  a  ready  man  to  speak,  but  he  finds  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has  passed  away  like  the  early 
cloud  and  the  morning  dew,  and  he  knows  not  where  to 
find  it. 

Heb,  i,  3,  "  God  created  the  w^orld  by  his  Son,"  yet 
stands.  It  can  not  be  explained  away  by  my  brother. 
It  is  like  the  branch  of  a  tree — if  you  force  it  from  its 
place,  the  moment  that  it  is  released  it  flies  back  again. 
So  the  truth  remains  in  defiance  of  all  explanations.  He 
says  that  he  wants  a  place  on  which  to  stand  when  my 
system  is  gone  down.  He  will  have  a  long  time  to  wait. 
My  brother  should  know  that  the  most  eminent  men  in 
the  world  are  embracing,  as  the  only  true  Bible  doctrine, 
this  system  at  the  present  time.    The  Roman  Catholics 


DISCUSSION   OX   THE  TRINITY. 


2T1 


made  the  first  Trinitarian  creed,  and  the  Protestants  ob- 
tained theirs  from  the  Roman  Catholics.  But  they  must 
go  down.  My  brother  says  that  the  most  noted  names 
are  on  his  side.  What  are  the  names  that  are  quoted 
against  the  Christian  doctrine  ?  If  we  w^ish  to  quote  the 
eminent  men  in  favor  of  it,  to  what  abler  names  could 
we  refer  than  to  Milton,  Xewton,  Locke  ?  and  these  men 
held  the  same  views  which  I  hold.  In  our  own  country 
I  should  refer  to  such  men  as  J.  Q.  Adams,  Fillmore,  and 
Worcester.  Are  such  men  to  be  put  down  and  called  no- 
body ?  They  are  claimed  by  those  called  orthodox  ;  and 
yet  they  held  our  views.  My  brother  says  of  the  title  ^  'Soii 
of  God^^'  that  it  is  an  indefinite  term.  I  ask  him  to  find 
one  text  in  all  God's  book,  where  an  angel  or  man  is 
called  the  onhj  begotten  Son  of  God."  If  he  can  not 
find  any  one  pei-son  in  all  heaven  and  earth,  but  Jesus 
Christ,  so  named,  let  him  not  call  it  ambiguous.  But 
the  name  God  is  an  indefinite  term ;  it  is  given  to  Moses, 
to  magistrates,  to  angels,  and  to  men.  Jesus  so  recog- 
nises it  in  John  x,  34,  "Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I 
said  ye  are  Gods  V  "  He  called  them  Gods  to  whom  the 
Word  of  God  came,"  &c. 

My  brother  does  not  know  what  to  make  of  the  appel- 
lation the  Son  of  God."  It  seems  a  very  obscure  term 
to  him.  It  means  nothing  in  his  view  !  nothing  at  all ! 
Why,  he  says.  Son  of  God!  The  angels  are  the  sons  of 
God.  But  I  ask,  "To  which  of  the  angels  said  God  at 
any  time.  Thou  art  my  Son :  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee ;  (or)  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  mo 
a  Son  V  Heb.  i,  5.  Do  you  not  see,  my  brother,  that 
you  contradict  the  plainest  teachings  of  the  Bible  ? 
Though  he  can  not  understand  the  meaning  of  the  term 
Son  of  God,  because  he  thinks  it  sometimes  applied  to 
angels,  and  thinks  that  it  can  not  possibly  prove  that 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God ;  yet  he  sees  no  ambiguity  in 
the  term  God,  though  it  is  constantly  applied  both  to 
angels  and  men  in  the  Bible,  and  but  a  very  few  times 
to  Christ.    But  if  it  is  such  an  ambiguous  text,  why  did 


272 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


not  .Jesus  tell  Peter  so,  instead  of  blessing  liim,  when  he 
said.  *'Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  ?" 
All  the  promises  and  blessings  attached  to  the  Gospel 
faith,  are  predicated  upon  the  admission  of  this  fact ;  and 
yet  my  brother  calls  it  ambiguous.  The  truth  is,  he  does 
not  believe  it.  Nothing  is  more  clearly  stated  in  the 
Word  of  God,  than  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God ;  and 
my  brother  must  know  that  his  reasoning  against  it  is 
fallacious.  My  brother  is  in  trouble  to-day ;  he  has  been 
putting  off  answering  the  arguments  from  day  to  day  till 
the  present  time,  and  now  they  press  down  upon  him, 
and  he  knows  not  what  to  do.  He  is  very  much  afraid 
that  the  Debate  will  be  published,  because  it  makes  him 
go  round  and  round.  I  thought,  that  he  was  getting 
giddy.  He  is  opposed  to  its  being  published ;  and  I  knew 
that  he  would  be  before  we  were  half  through.  He  will 
still  feel  worse  and  worse ;  but  I  do  not  know  what  he 
will  do  about  it.  Do  try  to  be  reconciled,  my  brother. 
If  you  did  not  want  it  published,  you  should  not  have 
been  here  at  all.  He  quotes  the  passage  (mistranslated) 
which  speaks  of  the  Uood  of  God;  but  he  is  very  care- 
ful to  tell  us  that  he  does  not  believe  it.  But  why,  then, 
does  he  quote  it  ?  Thus  he  assumes  his  positions ;  but 
anticipating  an  attack,  he  abandons  them — knowing  them 
to  be  untenable.  First  he  flies  this  way,  then  that,  cry- 
ing. I  don't  mean  it ;  and  then  he  turns  another  way, 
and  declares  that  he  don't  mean  that.  He  calls  me  an 
idolater;  because,  he  says,  that  I  worship  Christ  as  a 
creature ;  and  then  admits  that  he  worships  all  of  his 
Christ  (very  God  and  very  man)  as  God ;  thus  admitting 
that  he  worships  a  creature,  and  is  an  idolater — falling 
under  the  condemnation  he  pronounced  upon  me,  though 
I  have  never  assumed  such  a  position.  Are  the  saints 
in  heaven  idolaters,  who  worship  the  Lamb  that  was 
slain  \  Are  the  angels  idolaters,  who  worship  the  first- 
begotten  ?  Were  the  Christian  fathers  idolaters  ?  Were 
the  eminent  men  I  named,  such  as  Eusebius,  Dr.  S. 
Clarke,  Sir  Isaac  !Xewton,  John  Locke,  Milton,  J.  Q. 


DISCUSSION   ON  THE   TRINITY.  273 


Adams,  &c.,  idolaters  ?  He  talks  of  my  making  a  logi- 
cal blunder.  And  now  I  challenge  him  to  show  where, 
through  the  whole  of  this  discussion,  I  have  made  one 
logical  blunder. 

He  admitted  that  I  had  given  up  but  one  position ; 
and  you  all  know  that  that  was  one  which  I  had  never 
taken.  He  thought  that  if  Cln^ist  received  all  power, 
that  then  there  was  no  power  that  he  did  not  receive  at 
that  time.  But  if  there  was  no  power  but  that  conveyed 
then,  it  follows  that  Christ  had  none  before,  and  that  none, 
angels  or  men,  had  any  after  ;  and  that  even  Christ  could 
not  have  had  any  when  he  raised  the  dead.  Such  is  the 
effect  of  my  brother's  logic,  and  he  can  not  dodge  it. 
The  true  meaning  of  the  text,  "  all  power  is  given,"  &c., 
is,  that  God  has  given  to  Christ  all  authority  and  power 
to  carry  on  the  work  of  redemption.  But  my  brother's 
theory  annihilates  his  God,  in  spite  of  his  artifice ;  the 
cap  belongs  to  him,  and  he  must  wear  it — the  shoe  may 
pinch,  but  he  must  put  it  on.  If  he  dislikes  it,  let  him 
abandon  his  theory. 

He  says,  that  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  is  sim- 
ply an  oriental  figure  of  speech.  So  that,  when  John 
saw  the  heavens  opened,  and  Jesus  standing  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  he  simply  saw  a  figure  of  speech — an  ori- 
ental figure  of  speech  !  He  thinks,  that  as  God  fills  all 
space,  the  Son  could  not  literally  come  out  from  God,  nor 
sit  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  I  believe  in  the  Omni- 
presence of  God,  but  not  in  a  physical,  bodily  presence ; 
that  would  preclude  the  possibility  of  any  thing  existing 
outside  of  his  person.  God  is  Omnipresent  to  under- 
stand all  things  by  the  perfection  of  his  infinite  intelli- 
gence. He  is  present  to  see  every  thing ;  because  nothing 
is  hid  from  his  all-piercing  eye.  His  ear  is  open  to  all 
places,  not  because  of  a  local  presence,  but  because  of 
the  perfection  of  an  intellectual  presence.  Our  powers 
are  all  bounded  by  a  narrow  circumference,  and  our  pre- 
sence extends  but  a  short  distance  around  us;  yet  our 
presence  extends  beyond  the  space  filled  by  our  person ; 


274 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


but  if  their  philosophy  be  correct,  God's  does  not.  The 
wicked  cannot  be  banished  from,  but  must  for  ever  dwell 
in,  God.  My  brother  makes  out,  that  God  literally  fills 
every  thing,  even  the  lower  regions  of  the  lost  are  literal- 
ly in  God.  That  is  a  harsh  idea,  my  brother!  Abandon 
it,  I  pray  you.  Again,  Jesus  positively  denies  being  the 
author  of  his  own  miracles.  He  declares  that  he  was 
not  the  author  of  the  system  he  preached.  My  brother 
contends  that  he  was,  and  that  God  and  Christ  were 
one  being.  I  want  him  to  explain  this.  Come  up  to 
the  work,  my  brother,  and  explain  how  it  is  Jesus  said, 
"  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,"  and  yet  that  he  is 
the  eternal  God  ?  I  want  my  brother  to  explain,  how 
the  first  person  in  the  Trinity  begat  Christ,  and  the  last 
person  in  the  Trinity  begat  him  ?  and  how  thus  he  was 
begotten  by  two  persons,  and  had  two  Fathei-s  ?  This  is 
no  isolated  objection  to  the  theory,  nor  peculiar  blunder 
of  my  brother.  The  system  which  he  attempts  to  uphold, 
involves  five  hundred  as  great  absurdities  as  this ;  and 
were  we  to  continue  this  debate  ever  so  long,  we  should 
still  bring  up  as  great  absurdities  as  this  for  him  to  ex- 
plain away. 

Jesus  Christ  invariably  refers  to  the  Father  as  his 
authority  ;  he  says,  the  Father  has  given  the  Son  author- 
ity. Why  can  we  not  believe  him  ?  Yet  whether  we 
will  or  no,  the  truth  remains,  that  God  has  a  Son  between 
him  and  all  creatures — a  divine  medium  between  the 
Creator  and  the  creature.  This  has  ever  been  the  doctrine 
held  by  the  most  eminently  enlightened  men  of  all  the 
world.  It  has  been  the  comfort  and  stay  of  thousands, 
that  we  had  a  divine  Mediator.  But  my  brother,  by  de- 
nying this  divine  medium,  and  assuming  that  the  media- 
tor is  a  mere  man,  has  denied  the  existence  of  the  true 
Mediator.  And  I  challenge  him  to  show,  that  he  has 
any  medium  hettveen  God  and  man.  Paul  says,  "a me- 
diator is  not  a  mediator  of  one,  but  God  is  one''' — that  is, 
a  mediator  is  not  one  of  the  parties.  My  brother  says, 
Christ  is  two — God  and  man  ;  but  the  God  cannot  be  a 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


2T5 


mediator  letioeen  God  and  man,  for  God  is  God  himself, 
and  not  hetween.  Nor  can  the  man  be  a  mediator  be- 
tween man  and  God,  for  the  man  is  man  himself,  and  not 
hetween.  Is  it  not  proper  to  say  tliat  Christ  is  the  only 
begotten  Son  of  God  ?  Then  why  not  believe  it  ?  Is  it 
right  to  call  GocVs  Son — only  begotten  Son,  a  creature  ? 
Then  why  do  it  ?  So  long  as  there  is  none  other  called 
the  only  hegotten  and  well  heloved  Son  of  God,  the  term 
is  not  only  not  ambiguous,  but  very  expressive.  I  want 
my  brother  to  explain  how,  if  God  and  the  man  Jesus, 
both  make  but  one  person,  he  can  divide  them  so  as  to 
have  one  to  know  what  the  other  does  not  ?  I  want  him 
to  tell  us,  if  God  and  man  make  one  Christ  in  but  one 
person ;  and  as  he  says,  God  left  the  man  to  die  on  the 
cross,  which  w^as  the  one  person  ?  the  God  who  left,  or  the 
man  who  remained  ?  If  the  God  who  left  was  a  person, 
and  there  was  but  one ;  then  no  person  remained  on  the 
cross — no  person  sufiered — no  person  died — no  person 
was  buried — no  person  rose — and  thus  he  destroys  the 
whole  plan  of  salvation ;  but,  if  he  says  that  the  God  that 
left  was  not  a  person,  then  he  falls  into  the  Atheism  of 
which  he  accused  me.  If  he  says  that  the  God  who  left 
was  a  person,  and  the  man  who  remained  was  also  a  per- 
son, then  he  has  two  persons  in  Christ,  and  the  creed  is 
false.  Answer  it  as  he  will,  the  dilemma  is  unavoidable. 
His  creed  is  illogical,  and  his  argument  must  be  so;  he 
cannot  avoid  it.  He  has  not  yet  answered  my  argu- 
ments relating  to  the  three  persons.  Come,  my  brother, 
what  are  they  ?  If  they  are  three  angels,  they  would 
not,  united,  make  one  God  !  If  they  be  three  Gods,  then 
they  are  not  one.  To  say  they  are  three  persons,  is  no 
answer.  Three  men  are  three  persons ;  to  say  they  are 
three  spirits  would  not  answer.  What  are  they,  iif  they 
are  not  three  men,  nor  three  angels,  nor  three  Sons  of 
God — what  are  they  ?  Come,  my  brother,  you  like  us 
to  define,  tell  me  now,  are  they  three  men,  angels,  or 
Gods?  or  if  neither — what  are  they?  If  you  say  three 
Gods,  you  will  thus  agree  with  your'^choice  translation 


276 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


of  Eloliim^  the  Gods.  Which  shall  it  be  ?  How  much 
easier,  as  well  as  more  Scriptural,  to  believe  that  Jesus 
is  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  the  Spirit  of  God  ?  How  plain  was  the  teaching  of 
Jesus — ever  pointing  us  to  the  Father,  as  the  only  true 
God! 

Mr.  Flood's  Eighteenth  reply : 

I  suppose  I  have  the  evidence  clear,  that  my  brother 
had  no  other  way  of  putting  in  his  time,  than  by  trying 
again,  when  he  thought  his  brother  was  in  a  great 
dilemma,  to  increase  his  difficulty.  It  seems  to  me,  that 
that  hell  that  was  spoken  of,  is  still  more  uncertain  than 
ever.  My  brother  brings  his  little  pamphlet,  and  he  sets 
Dr.  Summerbell  against  Dr.  Clarke.  It  is  a  pity  the 
poor  doctor  had  not  lived  to  this  day,  to  witness  the  light 
of  this  second  Luther.  It  was  the  poor  man's  misfor- 
tune, however.  According  to  the  general  view,  he  was 
the  best,  at  least  among  the  very  best,  that  had  ever 
written  on  the  original  meaning  of  the  sacred  texts. 

My  brother  refers  to  the  question  of  Christ  having  no 
power,  and  then  having  power.  But  I  leave  the  question ; 
it  has  been  passed  over  times  enough.  He  said,  if  all 
power  was  given  him  then,  then  he  had  no  power  when 
he  raised  the  dead  ;  this,  truly,  is  a  remarkable  conclusion 
to  be  drawn  from  the  premises.  ''''All  power  is  given 
into  my  hand."  Therefore  Jesus  had  no  power  when  he 
raised  the  dead.  If  that  is  a  logical  conclusion,  my 
knowledge  of  logic  is  very  limited. 

My  brother  thinks  his  opponent's  head  is  dizzy,  and 
would  like  to  persuade  you  that  I  am  crazy.  He  would 
make  you  believe  that  I  am  a  blower  and  striker,  and  on 
this  morning  that  he  has  met  a  crazy  man.  ^Here,  his 
bell  will  have  to  jingle  louder  about  my  ears,  else  I  will 
not  allow  my  head  to  become  unsteady  in  the  least.  He 
wants  to  know  how  we  shall  have  a  mediator  ?  If  Jesus 
Christ  is  God,  then  he  was  no  mediator  ;  for  he  was  not 
between  God  and  man.    If  Jesus  Christ  were  man,  then 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRIXITT. 


277 


he  was  not  a  mediator ;  for  then  he  could  not  be  between. 
It  is  a  question  between  Paul  and  my  brother  Summer- 
bell.  There  is  one  God  and  one  Mediator  between  God 
and  man — the  man  Christ  J esus.  My  brother,  in  so  many 
words,  denies  the  statement  of  Paul,  and  says  it  is  not 
60.  If  Christ  is  a  man,  he  can  not  be  a  mediator  ;  and 
if  God,  he  can  not  be  a  mediator.  I  would  have  you 
know  that  not  one  position  has  been  rendered  doubtful, 
by  any  one  statement,  since  I  have  been  here ;  much  less 
has  any  point  been  given  up,  notwithstanding  the  touch- 
ing appeals  made  for  us,  to  give  up  Trinitarianism, 
and  his  representing  that  I  have  nothing  here  but  chaft* 
and  hulls,  employing  such  phraseology  as  this,  trying  to 
convince  me  that  my  doctrine  should  be  at  once  aban- 
doned, and  tells  you  that  his  brother  is  in  some  difficulty  ; 
that  his  brother  had  felt  himself  in  his  last  moments. 
But  I  suppose  it  was  because  he  had  persuaded  himself 
that  I  would  be  closed  up  the  first  day,  and  sent  home. 
And  my  brother  here  wants  to  persuade  the  people,  and 
urges  upon  them,  that  my  nerves  are  all  shaken  and  my 
head  dizzy,  and  that  I  am  just  about  to  yield  up  my  own 
and  adopt  his  system.  But  his  Christ  is  neither  God, 
angel,  nor  man.  Xow,  here  is  the  point  to  be  met :  I 
want  to  know  what  his  Christ  now  is  ?  He  says  he  is 
not  God,  nor  man.  Paul  represents  the  human  nature 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  demonstrate  the  truth  that 
bis  body  was  an  earthly  body.  He  says,  "a  spirit  hath  not 
flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have ;"'  he  had  a  body,  an 
identical  body,  and  took  that  body  to  heaven.  If  Christ 
is  not  God,  he,  through  his  humanity,  does  not  become 
the  visible  likeness  of  God  to  the  world,  in  the  person  of 
the  man  Jesus  Christ.  Thus,  I  assert  again,  it  is  the  basest 
of  idolatry  to  worship  him.  I  do  not  make  my  brother 
say  this,  but  I  draw  the  conclusion  from  premises  laid 
down.  He  desires  to  present  Christ  as  an  object  of 
worship,  and  he  is  not  able  to  tell  you  what  Christ  is.  I 
tell  you  he  is  man  and  he  is  God — very  and  eteraal 
God^— one  with  the  Father.    "  The  Word  was  with  God 


278 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


and  wa3  God,"  and  was  that  Word  that  was  made  flesh, 
and  we  beheld  his  gloi-y  full  of  grace  and  truth.  Now  I  am 
close  in  vour  neighborhood,  and  yet  my  brother  insists 
that  his  opponent  has  retreated ;  that  he  has  ayoided 
eyery  issue,  dodged  eyery  question.  If  we  haye  a  second 
edition  of  this  class  of  speeches,  in  the  future,  it  will  be 
yery  interesting  to  one  class  of  people.  I  glory  in  my 
doctrine.  The  more  I  reflect,  the  more  I  inyestigate,  the 
more  deeply  is  my  heart  in  this  glorious  doctrine  of  our 
Sayiour  I  He  is  our  Creator,  our  preseryer,  and  under- 
stands all  our  wants  ;  he  possesses  all  the  perfections  of 
the  Diyine  mind.  I  haye  shown  that  he  possesses  all 
the  attributes  essential  to  the  Divine  mind  ;  he  possesses 
omniscience,  omnipotence,  and  omnipresence,  and  then 
I  haye  shown,  immutability.  If  all  things  pass  away, 
we  haye  the  assurance  that  he  is  the  same.  What  is  he  ? 
Would  we  could  tell  what  he  is.  He  says,  my  system 
would  not  saye  a  cricket.  My  system  is  sufficient  to 
saye  a  whole  lost  world.  We  haye  but  one  God  ;  three 
persons  in  one,  and  one  in  three — the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost.  I  haye  a  system  here  that  proves  sufficient 
for  the  salvation  of  all  men.  God's  love  to  the  world  is 
manifested  in  his  looking  to  the  wants  and  necessities  of 
all  men ;  in  providing  a  Saviour  just  suited  to  their 
condition,  possessing  all  the  infinite  perfections  of  Jeho- 
vah, capable  of  supplying  our  needs  and  wants,  and  in 
whom,  at  the  same  time,  were  hidden  the  infinite  trea- 
sures of  the  Divine  wisdom.  As  I  have  shown,  the  true 
position  is,  that  Christ,  our  Redeemer,  is  both  God  and 
man.  Through  the  man  Jesus  Christ,  we  have  access  to 
God ;  he  is  the  medium  of  our  approach,  and  appeai*eth  in 
the  presence  of  God  for  us.  To-day  he  is  there  —  the 
Almighty  Being ;  not  a  being  destitute  of  knowledge ; 
nor  a  being  that  may  be  imperfect.  If,  as  my  opponent 
says,  he  is  neither  God  nor  angel,  if  he  can  conceive  of 
a  being  that  is  not  the  creature  nor  God.  I  want  to  know 
what  it  is.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  he  asserts,  is 
false — contraiT  to  the  teachinor  of  the  Word  of  God. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


279 


Five  days  has  he  been  laboring,  to  prove  that  the  doc- 
trine is  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  he  closes  his 
argument,  turns  round  and  supposes  his  opponent  is  just 
ready,  and  presses  him  to  give  up  the  ghost  at  once.  My 
brother  must  have  done  a  great  work,  that  he  has  van- 
quished his  opponent.  I  assume,  the  only  begotten  Son 
of  God  is  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  and  he  states 
I  have  two  Gods.  I  quote  Luke,  to  show  that  the  Virgin, 
overshadowed  with  the  power  of  the  Highest,  con- 
ceived and  bare  a  Son.  I  showed  him  that  he  was  the 
Son  of  David  and  of  Abraham,  and  was  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham and  of  David. 

I  propose  to  lift  the  flood-gates  a  little  while,  and  give 
my  brother  a  passage  homeward.  You  may  take  this 
for  braggadocia  ;  but  it  is  my  purpose  to  let  the  wind  out 
of  his  sails.  I  sympathize  with  you,  my  brother,  on  your 
way  homeward,  but  I  must  necessarily  perform  my  work. 
My  brother  has  been  anxious  to  make  you  believe  that 
I  have  failed  in  argument.  Not  in  any  sense.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  tlie  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  sustained  by 
the  whole  of  the  Word  of  God.  I  call  heaven  and  this 
congregation  to  witness,  I  have  not  been  sensible  of  the 
slightest  interference  with  those  truths,  since  the  com- 
mencement of  this  argument.  We  intend  to  expose  our 
views  of  Methodism,  and  let  it  go  open-handed  to  the 
world,  and  preach  the  true  doctrine  ;  we  come  outspoken, 
and  hesitate  not  to  invite  the  world  to  examine.  This 
Word  of  God  is  our  Eedeemer  God — our  Christ  whom 
we  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  All  I  say  to  my 
brother,  is,  that  I  wish  he  had  served  this  Master  and 
never  done  him  wrong.  I  have  served  Christ  for  seven- 
teen years,  now,  and  bowed  at  the  shrine  of  him  who  is 
the  only  living  and  true  God.  I  have  worshiped  him 
united  as  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  he  has 
never  done  me  wrong.  Then,  why  should  I  betray  him, 
and  turn  my  back  upon  his  bleeding  cross  ?  I  am  sure 
my  brother  will  not  be  ofiended  at  this  appeal,  will  he  ? 
1  challenge  my  brother  to  produce  one  instance,  in  which 


280 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


I  have  prevaricatGcl ;  and  whatever  may  be  the  result  of 
this  discussion,  I  shall  have  the  proud  satisfaction,  that 
I  carry  within,  the  consciousness  that  I  have  acted  as  an 
honorable,  honest  man,  and  not  tried  by  any  means,  to  • 
prejudice  the  argument,  neither  in  the  pulpit  nor  out  of 
it,  and  sought  no  advantage  of  my  opponent.  I  m-ge 
you  to  weigh  this,  and  not  let  it  pass  from  the  mind,  by  a 
mere  statement,  that  no  answers  have  been  given  to  the 
arguments  advanced  by  the  brother  from  Cincinnati.  A 
very  large  portion  of  the  audience  imagine  that  much 
has  been  done.  If  anything  has  been  done  to  show  the 
absurdity  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine,  with  regard  to  the 
point  at  issue,  I  hope  it  will  be  pursued.  He  says  I  am 
afraid  of  the  publication  of  this  book.  Neither  in  public 
or  private  have  I  expressed  any  objection.  I  could  have 
desired  to  present  my  thoughts  in  a  more  connected 
manner,  than  I  can  do  in  following  the  tedious  course  of 
my  friend.  When  all  earthly  friends  fail,  you  will  find 
me  clinging  to  the  cross  of  Christ,  as  my  hope  of  salva- 
tion ;  as  my  only  refuge,  and  only  hope,  you  will  find  me 
looking  to  Christ — as  the  only  hope  for  the  lost  and  per- 
ishing— as  the  great  Captain  of  Salvation — equal  with 
the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  one  person. 

I  have  asserted  the  essential  omnipresence  of  Jehovah, 
and  the  Psalmist  says,  "  If  I  ascend  to  heaven,  thou  art 
there,"  &c.  So  you  see,  according  to  the  language  of 
the  Psalmist,  God  pervades  inmensity  of  space.  But  my 
brother  gives  him  identity  somewhere,  though  he  does 
not  pretend  to  be  explicit.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  know 
that  God  is  everywhere — that  he  is  ubiquitous.  My 
brother  himself  tells  of  his  divine  omnipresence ;  however 
he  may  limit  it,  or  however  circumscribe  it.  I  took  the 
liberty,  in  the  discussion,  to  state  that  it  was  a  mysteri- 
ous subject,  and  he  turned  round,  saying  it  was  so.  It 
might  be  thought  a  convenient  opportunity  to  make  an 
impression,  that  he  had  made  a  point  in  doctrine — some 
point  that  his  brother  had  denied. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TlllNITY. 


281 


Mr.  Summerbell's  !N"ineteenth  address : 

My  friends — Because  I  read  an  argument  from  a 
printed  pamphlet  of  my  own,  on  Jer.  xxiii,  6,  to  avoid 
the  trouble  of  writing  it  again,  my  brother  calls  me,  Dr. 
Summerbell  versics  l)r.  Clarke.  But,  my  friends,  Dr. 
Clarke  is  on  my  side  on  this  text,  so  that  it  is  Drs.  Sum- 
merbell and  Clarke  versus  Dr.  Flood.  And  I  am  sure 
that  the  text  will  admit  of  no  other  construction  than 
that  I  gave ;  for  they  admit  that  the  Trinity  draws  its 
authority  from  the  New  Testament,  only  ;  then,  why  do 
they  go  to  the  Old?  On  this  text,  Jer.  xxiii,  6,  viz: 
•upi-x  mn*  iN"ip^  idij/  nn  ve-zeh  sherao  asJier  yik- 
reu  yehovah  tsidkenu^  translated  in  the  Septuagint,  xa(, 

tovto  to  ovoixa  avTfov  u  xaXsast  avtov.  xvpio?  Ic^issSsx    that  is,  "And 

this  is  his  name  which  the  Lord  shall  call  him,  Josedek." 

Clarke  says,  "In  his  days  Judah  shall  be  saved,  and 
Israel  shall  dwell  safely,  and  this  is  the  name  whereby 
she  shall  be  called,  THE  LOKD  OUK  RIGHTEOUS- 
NESS ! " 

"  I  doubt  not,  that  some  persons  will  be  offended  with 
me  for  depriving  them,  by  this  translation,  of  a  favorite 
argument  for  proving  the  divinity  of  our  Saviour  from 
the  Old  Testament — but  I  cannot  help  it ;  I  have  done  it 
with  no  ill  design,  but  purely  because  I  think,  and  am 
morally  sure,  that  the  text,  as  it  stands,  will  not  properly 
admit  of  any  other  construction.  The  Septuagint  have 
so  translated  it  before  me,  in  an  age  when  there  could 
not  possibly,  bo  any  bias  or  prejudice,  either  for  or  against 
the  fore-mentioned  doctrine  —  a  doctrine  which  draws 
its  decisive  proofs  from  the  New  Testament  only.  As  to 
those  who  put  the  sense  of  their  creed  upon  the  words, 
they  must  be  content  to  stand  out  of  the  list  of  Hebrew 
critics." — Clarke,  Jer.  xxiii,  6. 

He  re-states  my  argument,  "  If  Christ  be  very  man, 
then  he  can  not  be  mediator  between  God  and  men,  be- 
cause he  is  man ;  and  if  he  be  '  very  God,'  then  he  can 
not  be  mediator  heticeen  God  and  men,  because  he  is 
God — '  For  a  mediator  is  not  a  mediator  of  one,  but  God 
24 


282 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITT. 


is  one.'*'  Gal.  iii.  20.  He  quotes,  ''There  is  one  God 
and  one  mediator  between  God  and  men.  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,"  1  Tim.  ii,  5  ;  but  Paul  did  not  sav.  **  very  man," 
nor  did  he  mean  "  verv  man.'*  for  he  did  not  believe  that 
Christ  was  "very  man.''  Paul  says,  '*The  fii-st  man 
was  of  the  earth,  earthy ;  but  the  second  man  is  the  Lord 
from  JieavenP  1  Cor.  xv,  47.  One  thing  I  wish  you 
to  notice,  mark,  and  remember.  Eveiy  solitary  efibrt 
against  the  true  doctiine  faUs,  and  eveiy  text  wlien  ex- 
amined, comes  out  right  side  up  with  care.''  for  the 
Christian  doctrine  :  but  when  I  attack  his  system,  he  can 
neither  clear  it  up,  nor  defend  it.  He  has  but  a  very 
man  '*  sacrifice,  yet  I  have  quoted  Clarke  every  day.  that 
"  God  will  no  more  accept  of  man's  blood  for  sacrifice, 
than  he  will  swine's  blood,"  but  he  takes  no  notice  of  it. 
Af  v  brother  says,  that  some  one  (?)  declai-ed  that  he  would 
not  last  one  day  in  this  discussion  I  Xow  all  my  friends 
told  me  that  he  was  a  very  smart  man  .  He  now  declares 
that  he  has  not  abandoned  one  p^osition.  That  is  good  ! 
Did  you  not  admit  that  God  has  a  body,  contrary  to  your 
creed  \  Did  you  not  admit  tliat  Christ  was  divided  thi-ee 
days  and  three  nights,  contraiT  to  your  creed  \  O,  yes, 
brother,  don't  go  back  after  coming  out  so  far — Come 
on  !  My  brother  does  not  yet  explain  about  worshiping 
all  of  his  God.  or  all  of  his  Christ.  K  his  God  has  a 
human  body,  then  he  worships  a  creature.  If  his  Christ 
is  part,  very  man.  and  he  worships  him  all,  then  he  wor- 
ships a  creature.  We  worship  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God. 
Heb.  i.  6,  When  he  bringeth  the  first  begotten  into  the 
world,  he  saith,  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him." 
Did  God  mean  himself  {  Did  he  mean  himself  when  he 
said,  Thy  throne,  O  God.  is  for.  ever  and  ever,  a  scepter 
of  righteousness  is  the  scepter  of  thy  kingdom,  for  thou 
hast  loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity,  therefore 
God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of 
gladness  above  thy  fellows?"  Angels  worship  the 
Lamb  that  was  slain.  Eev.  v,  12.  My  brother  thinks, 
dame  Nature  made  mj  head  wrong.    Any  thing  to 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


283 


get  off  the  question.  Let  me  remind  you,  my  brother, 
that  my  head  is  not  the  question. 

My  brother  can  not  see  how  it  is,  that  we  are  not 
Arians.  Arius  held  entirely  different  views;  views 
much  nearer  my  brother's — only  Arius'  created  Son  of 
God  was  much  older,  and  perhaps,  greater  than  my  bro- 
ther's. With  Arius,  the  Son  of  God  was  the  first  being 
created  in  eternity ;  but  with  my  brother,  the  Son  of  God 
is  only  about  1800  years  old.  That  is  the  difference. 
Neither  he  nor  my  brother  believes  in  a  Son  of  God  truly 
begotten  of '  the  Father  before  all  worlds.  I  will  read 
from  Neander : 

"Arius  certainly  did  not  believe  that  he  was  preaching 
a  new  doctrine,  but  only  bringing  out  and  establishing 
the  old  church  subordination  system;  without  which,  it 
seemed  to  him,  neither  the  monarchical  principle  of  the 
Triad,  nor  the  self-subsistent  personality  of  the  Logos 
could  be  maintained." — Neander,  Yol.  ii,  p.  361. 

"  He  (Arius)  was  intending  simply  to  defend  the  old 
doctrine  of  the  church  concerning  the  Trinity^  against 
Sabellian  and  Gnostic  opinions." — Ibid.  p.  365. 

"  Eusebius  was  of  opinion,  that  it  was  impossible  to 
express  the  truth  after  the  manner  of  men,  in  any  other 
way,  than  by  saying,  the  existence  of  the  Father  precedes 
the  existence  and  origin  of  the  Son." — Ibid.  p.  368. 

My  brother  challenges  any  medium  between  God  and 
the  creature  ;  let  me  read  him  the  views  of  the  early 
Christians.  Neander,  i,  p.  605,  states,  "  The  prevailing 
view,  in  the  Western  church,"  to  be  "one  divine  essence 
in  the  Father  and  the  Son,  but  at  the  same  time,  a  sub- 
ordination in  the  relation  of  the  Son  to  the  Father." 
Now  unless  this  divine  essence  was  created,  which  my 
brother  will  not  say,  the  subordinate  Son  uncreated,  was 
a  medium  between  God  and  the  creature.  The  whole 
.  church  was  comprised  in  what  was  called  the  Eastern 
and  Western,  and  on  p.  608,  Neander  says,  "  that  these 
Bame  views  prevailed  in  the  Eastern  church  till  late  in  the 
fourth  century."    Also,  the  Gothic  nations  believed  that 


284 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


the  Father  was  greater  than  the  Son ;  but  not  that  the 
Son  was  created. — Wadington,  p.  117. 

We  read  in  the  Bible,  that  Christ  is  the  mediator  be- 
tween God  and  men  ;  that  he  is  God's  Son,  and  that  God 
is  his  Father.  Would  my  brother  call  God's  only  begot- 
ten Son,  begotten  before  all  worlds,"  as  per  Nicene 
creed,  a  creature  ?  Dare  my  brother  say  that  ?  But 
still  he  denies  a  medium ;  then  let  me  prove  it  farther  by 
his  orthodox  fathers,  as  he  would  term  them.  Neander 
says  of  the  adoption  of  omoousion :  "  The  majority  of  the 
council  might  perhaps  agree  in  the  articles  against  that 
part  of  the  Arian  creed,  which  placed  the  Son  of  God  on 
a  level  with  creatures,  yet  the  definitions  of  the  oixoovaiov 
were  at  variance  with  the  oriental  type  of  doctrine,  hence 
there  arose  much  opposition,"  &c.,  yet,  he  says,  Eusebius 
finally  accepted  it ;  for  it,  "  according  to  his  interpreta- 
tion, denoted  nothing  else  than  the  exaltation  of  the  Son 
of  God  above  all  comparison  with  created  beings^  and  his 
perfect  likeness  to  the  Father."    These  saw  a  medium. 

"  There  were  many  others  who  adopted  the  Nicene 
creed  in  the  same  sense  with  Eusebius,  interpreting  it  in 
accordance  with  their  own  doctrinal  system ;  so  that  the 
u^ioovsiov  was  nothing  more  than  a  designation  of  the 
ofioiotTjs  xo-t  ovoiav  (likeness  in  respect  to  essence).  At 
first,  seventeen  bishops,  who  probably  belonged  to  the 
strictly  Arian  party,  declined  to  go  with  the  majority ; 
but  as  the  creed  was  to  be  made  known  under  the  im- 
perial authority,  and  threatened  all  who  would  not 
adopt  it  with  the  loss  of  their  places  and  condemnation 
as  refractory  subjects,  the  greater  part  of  these  yielded 
through  fear." — Neander,  Yol.  ii,  p.  376-7. 

Mosheim  says :  "  Dr.  Clarke  maintained  an  equality  of 
perfections  in  the  three  persons,  but  a  suboTclination  of 
nature  in  point  of  existence  and  derivation."  Yol.  ii,  315, 

You  see  my  brother  fails  in  every  thing.  Now,  I  chal- 
lenge him  to  show  how  he  worships  all  his  Christ  with- 
out worshiping  a  creature ;  but  he  can  not  do  it — mark 
that. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRIXITT. 


285 


Will  my  brothep  still  say,  that  there  is  no  medium  be- 
tween God  and  the  creature  ?  We  will  see.  ,  I  can  bring 
him  floods  of  authority  on  that  point  if  necessary.  My 
argument  on  the  three  divine  persons,  who  are  all  infinite, 
and  possess  every  attribute  of  Deity,  my  brother  has  not 
yet  answered.  If  three  persons,  possessing  every  possible 
perfection  of  God  infinitely,  are  three  Gods,  then  my 
brother's  three  persons  are  three  Gods,  according  to  his 
own  argument.  If  they  are  not  three  Gods,  three  angels, 
nor  three  men,  what  are  they  ?  to  what  class  of  beings 
do  they  belong  ?  You  see  how  he  dodges  all  my  argu- 
ments, promising  day  after  day,  that  he  will  answer  them 
when  the  proper  time  couies. 

He  says  that  Christ  is  Omnipotent ;  yet  Christ  says, 
"  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing."  He  says  that 
Christ  is  Omnipresent;  yet  Jesus  says,  "  I  am  glad  for 
your  sakes  I  was  not  there."  Which  will  you  believe  ? 
He  says,  Christ  is  Omniscient ;  but  Christ  says,  "  that 
he  knows  not  the  day  nor  the  hour."  Who  is  correct, 
Jesus  or  my  brother  ?  Let  my  brother  answer.  Clarke 
represents  the  Son  as  simply  man.  I  will  read  him  on 
Luke  i,  25. 

'•Behold  the  greatness  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus:  1st. 
Because  that  human  nature  that  should  be  born  of  the  Vir- 
gin, was  to  be  united  to  the  divine  nature.  2d.  In  con- 
sequence of  this,  that  human  nature  should  be  called,  in 
a  peculiar  sense,  the  So7i  of  the  most  High  God^  because 
God  would  produce  it  in  her  womb,  without  the  inter- 
vention of  man.  3d.  He  shall  be  the  everlasting  Head 
and  Sovereign  of  his  church.  4th.  His  government  and 
kingdom  shall  be  eternal,  therefore,  also,  that  holy  thing, 
(or  person)  sh/ill  he  called  the  Son  of  God.  We  may 
plainly  perceive  here,  that  the  angel  does  not  give  the 
appellation,  Son  of  God^  to  the  divine  natiire  of  Christ. 

'•Here,  I  trust,  I  maybe  permitted  to  say,  with  all  due 
respect  for  those  who  difier  from  me,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  eternal  Sonship  of  Christ,  is,  in  my  opinion,  anti- 
Scriptural,  and  higlily  dangerous.    This  doctrine  1  reject, 


286 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


for  the  following  reasons :  If  Christ  be  the*  Son  of  God, 
as  to  his  divine  nature,  then  the  Father  is  of  necessity, 
prior,  consequently  superior  to  him.  To  say  that  he  was 
begotten  from  all  eternity  is,  in  my  opinion,  absurd,  and 
the  phrase,  Eternal  Son,  is  a  positive  self-contradiction." 

Such  views  are  still  inferior,  in  honoring  the  Son,  to 
those  of  Arius,  of  which  Xeander  says : 

^'  A  condemnation  of  these  Arian  propositions,  might 
doubtless,  have  been  carried  through,  if  on  the  other 
side,  the  party  defending  the  Homoousion,  (now  called 
Trinitarian,)  had  not  raised  an  opposition  to  the  domi- 
nant church  doctrine  of  the  East,  and  if  certain  in- 
dividuals had  not  come  out  as  mediators  between  the 
contending  parties.  They  also  endeavored  to  establish 
peace,  and  are  called  '  authors  of  peace,'  especiall;/  the 
learned  bishop  Eusebius,  of  Caesarea.'' — Nean.  ii,  373. 

Still,  my  brother  objects  to  Mark  xiii,  32,  "Of  that  day 
and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  Son."  He  goes 
to  Clarke  ;  but  Clarke  himself  can  not  explain  it.  It  is 
very  much  in  the  way,  and  must  be  got  rid  of  Clarke 
goes  to  Macknight ;  but  says  that  he  is  "  afraid  "  that 
Macknight's  explanation  "  only  cuts  the  knot,  but  does 
not  untie  it."  My  brother  says,  Clarke  does  not  think  it 
Bible  ;  and  why,  pray  ?  simply  because  it  contradicts  his 
theory.  He  objects  that  it  is  not  found  in  the  parallel 
passages  in  the  other  Gospels.  A  poor  reason,  truly. 
More  than  half  of  John  might  be  rejected  on  the  same 
grounds ;  but  Matt,  xxiv,  36,  says  the  Father  only " 
knows ;  so  that  denying  one  text,  will  not  relieve  thern. 
It  is  surely  a  false  theory  that  tears  the  Bible  to  pieces  in 
this  way.  This  way  of  explaining  the  text,  by  denying 
it,  is  exceedingly  awkward.  So  many  passages  are  con- 
stantly in  his  way ;  but  it  is  not  with  me  that  he  has  to 
contend,  but  with  God's  holy  book.  If  he  could  only 
drag  out  all  these  texts,  and  could  get  the  Trinity  in 
their  place,  why  he  could  soon  prove  his  creed.  Had 
be  made  the  Bible,  he  would  have  put  it  there ;  but 
those  who  made  the  Bible,  were  not  Trinitarians.  The 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITT. 


287 


God  of  heaven  did  not  believe  in  the  Trinity,  nor  did 
the  prophets  or  apostles.  He  has  not  been  able  to  find 
one  single  text  that  sanctions  such  a  belief.  But  instead 
of  finding  it  in  texts,  texts  have  to  be  explained  away, 
and  denied,  to  bring  it  in.  It  is  a  false  theory  that  thus 
teai-s  the  l3ible  in  pieces.  Do  not  believe  him,  my 
friends,  when  he  tells  you  that  your  salvation  depends 
npon  your  holding  on  to  such  a  belief:  thousands  were 
saved  before  such  a  faith  was  thought  of,  and  you  may 
be,  though  you  should  renounce  it.  My  brother  says,  that 
I  said,  that  his  system  would  not  save  a  cricket.  I  said 
that  if  he  would  take  what  we  believe,  from  his  system, 
that  it  would  not  sake  a  cricket.  Take  away  the  Bible, 
and  leave  only  his  Constitution — take  away  the  true  God, 
and  leave  only  his  Trinity — take  away  the  Son  of  God, 
and  leave  only  his  human  nature — take  out  of  it  all  the 
Christian's  faith,  and  a  cricket  would  consider  itself  in 
danger  upon  it.  Clarke  thinks  that  Jesus  must  have 
known  the  day  of  the  end  of  the  world,  for  Daniel  did. 
Now,  I  deny  that  Daniel  did  know  it.  He  says  that 
Clarke  refers  it  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  How- 
ever Clarke  may  interpret  it.  Matt,  xxiv,  36,  says  "  the 
Father  only,''  and  consequently,  that  excludes  from  that 
knowledge  all  other  persons. 

My  brother  has  not  satisfactorily  answered  this  text, 
and  he  is  yet  groaning  under  the  embarrassment  of  mak- 
ing two  persons  the  Father  of  Christ.  He  said  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  as  truly  a  person  as  the  Father,  because 
he  begat  Christ  as  truly  as  the  Father  did  ;  but  now  he 
tries  to  shift  the  difiiculty  ofl'  on  Luke ;  but  Luke  was 
not  a  Trinitarian,  and  will  not  help  him.  He  tries,  in 
vain,  to  make  Luke  a  scape-goat  to  bear  the  sins  of  his 
creed.  Let  my  brother  explain  how  two  persons  begat 
Christ.  Do  not  leave  it,  my  brother.  If  you  are  crowded 
for  time,  it  is  your  own  fault.  Yon  have  put  ofl*  too 
much  for  to-day.  Again,  he  says  that  he  will  not  aban- 
don his  system.  Persons  are  often  most  confident,  just 
before  they  turn.    The  darkest  hour  is  just  before  day. 


288 


DlSCrSSIOX  ox  THE  TRIXITT. 


and  there  is  no  better  sign  that  he  is  troubled  with  mis- 
givings, than  this  constantly  declaring,  that  he  v:iU  not. 
He  calls  heaven  and  earth  to  witness  that  he  is  not 
beaten  in  this  debate.  It  always  looks  as  though  a  man 
considered  his  case  bad,  when  he  ofiers  to  swear  to  it, 
before  he  is  asked.  He  declares  that  he  has  been  honest; 
who  disputes  it  ?  and  that  he  will  stick  to  his  doctrine. 
If  he  prefers  it,  let  him  do  so ;  but  he  will  wear  it  more 
loosely  than  ever  before,  I  am  certain.  It  will  not  enter 
into  the  deep  consciousness  of  his  soul ;  but  hang  about 
him  as  a  loose  and  superfluous  garment.  You  see  how 
he  manages  ;  he  lets  nearly  all  my  arguments  go  unan- 
swered, and  goes  ofi'  into  an  extasy  of  exhortation — gives 
us"  a  good  talk  about  holding  on  to  his  religion,  and  de- 
clares he  won't  give  up  his  creed,  nor  his  Saviour.  Who 
wants  him  to  give  up  his  Saviour  ?  I  do  not !  As  for 
his  creed,  there  is  Tittle  left  that  he  has  not  already  given 
up.  I  want  him  to  hold  on  to  his  Saviour,  and  be  as 
happy  as  he  can  to  the  end  of  his  life,  and  hope  that  he 
may  hereafter  see  his  Saviour  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  he  stills  throws  in  a 
little  frolic  and  a  little  fun  ;  and  if  by  this  and  loud  words, 
and  hard  sayings,  and  passing  over  Jordan,  and  seeing 
the  pebbles,  he  can  create  a  little  protracted  meeting  ex- 
citement, and  get  your  minds  diverted  from  the  argu- 
ment— as  the  affrighted  partridge  lures  the  enemy  away 
from  her  nest — wliy  let  him  do  it. 

He  still,  as  he  has  done  all  along,  threatens  to  raise  the 
flood-gates,  and  give  me  a  water  passage  homeward  ;  it 
has  been  flood,  flood,  flood,  with  him,  but  still  there  is 
no  water — like  a  dry  pump,  he  only  sucks  wind.  There 
is  no  danger ;  there  will  be  no  shower ;  there  may  be 
thunder,  but  no  lightning ;  all  of  you  keep  your  seats. 
He  has  not  answered  my  numerous  arguments ;  he  has  not 
answered  his  own  authority,  that  there  are  two  other  per- 
sons in  the  Trinity,  beside  God,  and  about  Clirist  having 
two  persons  for  his  Father;  and  about  Christ  being 
God^  because  he  knew  that  his  brother  Lazarus  was 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


289 


dead !  He  has  not  told  us  what  the  three  persons  are ; 
whether  they  are  three  Gods ;  three  Sons  of  God  ;  three 
angels ;  three  men,  or  to  what  class  of  intelligences  they 
belong.  If  the  three  persons  are  not  three  angels,  men, 
nor  Sons  of  God,  what  are  they  ?  Now,  brother,  don't 
evade  this  question  any  longer. 

I  want  him  also  to  answer  this  argument :  He  says 
that  his  Christ  is  veiy  God  and  very  man ;  yet,  both  the 
God  and  man  combined,  make  but  one  person,  and 
that  God  abandoned  the  "  very  man"  on  the  cross.  iSow 
the  argument  is  this,  was  God  who  left,  one  person  ?  If 
my  brother  denies  it,  then  he  falls  into  Atheism ;  but  if 
Christ,  composed  of  both  God  and  man,  was  only  one 
person,  then  if  God  was  a  person,  it  follows  that  when 
God  abandoned  the  "  very  man,"  one  person  was  gone ; 
and  as  the  two  made  but  one  person,  then  all  the  person 
there  was  there,  was  gone.  So  that  no  person  died  for 
our  sins,  no  person  was  buried,  no  person  rose  again 
from  the  dead,  and  our  faith  is  vain — we  are  yet  in  our 
sins.  My  brother  still  claims  that  Jesus  is  self-existent ; 
but  he  says :  "  I  live  by  the  Father."  Jesus  ever  ac- 
knowledged his  dependence  upon  the  Father.  At  the 
raising  of  Lazarus,  he  said :  "I  thank  thee,  O  Father, 
that  thou  hast  heard  me."  He  also  directs  us,  when  we 
pray,  to  say    Our  Fatlier." 

When  Paul  says,  "  all  things  are  put  under  Christ," 
he  immediately  adds,  "  it  is  manifested  that  he  is  ex- 
cepted, which  did  put  all  thijigs  under  himP  1  Cor. 
XV,  27.  And  "when  all  things  shall  be  subdued  to 
Christ,  then  shall  the  Son  also^  himself  he  subject  to 
him  that  put  all  things  under  himP  1  Cor.  xv,  28. 
Will  almighty  God  ever  be  subject  to  another  being  ? 

God  has  an  '-^  onlxj  hegotien  SonP  John  iii,  IS.  Was 
Jesus  Christ  an  only  begotten  Son?  If  so,  can  he  be 
God  the  Father  ? 

There  are,  in  the  Xe^o  Testament,  seventeen  passages, 
"wherein  the  Father  is  styled  the  o*ne,  or  only  God^  and 
nearly  two  hundred  in  which  he  is  styled  God  abso- 
rb 


290 


DISCUSSION  Oy  THE  TniyiTT. 


lutely ;  while  there  is  not  one  in  which  the  Son  is  so 
caUed. 

There  are  ninety  passages  in  Avhich  all  prayer  and 
praises  are  directed  to  God  the  Father,  and  which  imply 
that  all  things  should  be  directed  to  his  glory  and  honor; 
and  the  manner  of  address  is  uniformly  through  Christ; 
and  out  of  1300  i?assages^  wherein  the  word,  God,  is 
mentioned,  not  one  necessarily  implies  the  existence  of 
a  plurality  of  persons. 

Those  passages  in  which  Jesus  Christ  is  declared 
positively,  or  by  implication,  to  be  suhordinate  to  the 
Father,  deriving  from  him  his  heing,  receiving  from 
him  his  divine  power,  and  acting  in  all  things  wholly  in 
suhjection  to  the  authority  and  v:ill  of  the  Father^  are 
in  number  above  three  hundred. 

In  a  word,  the  svpremacy  of  the  Father,  over  the  Son.^ 
is  the  simple  and  indisputable  doctrine  of  the  Bihle ; 
whereas  the  doctrine  of  the  Son's  equality,  or  identity 
with  the  Father,  is  clothed  in  mystery,  encumbered  with 
difficulties.,  and  dependent.^  at  best,  on  but  2,  few  pas- 
sages for  sujyport. 

The  Trinit}'  is  unknown  in  the  Bible.  A  man  having 
the  Bible  alone  would  never  find  a  Trinity.  If  he  would, 
let  my  brother  produce  the  texts — even  one  sin^jle  text. 
The  word  was  introduced  among  Christians  by  Theophi- 
lus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
century,  but  not  so  soon  applied  to  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost.  The  doctrine  was  commenced  at  ^ice  in 
325 — received  its  finishing  touch  in  3S1,  but  was  not  en- 
tirely finished  till  6S1.  Gibbon  iv,  422.  It  was  adopted 
in  Spain,  in  589,  Gib.  345 ;  in  England,  in  596  ;  see  Mil- 
ner,  i,  519 ;  and  Bede,  lib.  2,  ch.  4  &  20  ;  in  Africa,  in 
534  ;  see  Gib.  iv,  114.  Our  views  are  spreading  now  in 
every  denomination.  Many  of  the  most  eminent  bishops 
of  England  hold  our  views  of  the  Trinity,  as  witnessed 
by  Mosheim.  Since  the  first  of  tins  century,  over  two 
hundred  ministers  of^the  Chui-ch  of  England  have  peti- 
tioned to  have  the  Athanasian  ci-eed  taken  from  the 


DISCUSSIOlir  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


291 


Prayer-book.  Over  300  churches  in  !N"ew  England  have 
renounced  the  doctrine  during  the  same  period.  In  the 
work  of  an  Episcopal  clergyman  One  of  Three  Hun- 
dred,'') published  by  the  Protestant  Epis.  S.  S.  Union, 
p.  185,  the  learned  author  says,  "  Again  I  look  over  the 
Presbyterian  and  sectarian  world  —  German,  French, 
Dutch,  Scotch,  Irish,  English,  Dane,  Saxon,  Prussian, 
American,  (fee,  how  many  pastors,  and  how  many  flocks 
do  I  see,  by  whom  the  Majesty  of  an  everlasting  Trinity, 
&c.,  are  now  regarded  as  the  exploded  eccentricities  of 
the  half-emancipated  Reformers,  (One  of  Three  Hun- 
dred, p.  184").  And  on  the  same  page,  he  mourns  that 
even  where  Michael  Servetus  was  burnt  by  Calvin,  "  So- 
cinus  exults  over  Calvin" — Unitarianism  over  Trinita- 
rianism,  p.  184. 

Mr.  Flood's  Nineteenth  reply : 

For  the  seventy-seventh  time,  perhaps,  I  speak  of  the 
miraculous  conception  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  which  my 
brother  claims  that  I  say  he  has  two  fathers.  I  hold 
there  are  not  two  Gods — I  acknowledge  but  one — and  that 
the  miraculous  conception  was  in  the  following  mauner: 
"  And  the  angel  answered  and  said  unto  her,  The  Holy 
Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  High- 
est shall  overshadow  thee  :  therefore,  also,  that  holy  thing 
which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of 
God."  Luke  i,  35.  I  assumed  here  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God.  I  never  once  asserted 
that  he  had  two  fathers.  This  language  my  opponent 
has  labored  to  put  into  my  mouth,  and  crowd  down  your 
throats.  I  now  assert  that  there  is  no  ground  for  any 
such  statements,  and  never  was.  I  hope  to  treat  my  op- 
ponent honorably  in  this  debate.  He  quotes,  "  The  first 
Adam  was  made  man."  I  answer  him  again,  that  the 
first  man  was  created  and  formed  of  earth,  by  the  hand 
of  God ;  was  made  a  man,  not  a  child  or  infant,  but  a 
full-grown  man  :  and  the  same  power  that  formed  him, 
and  made  him  a  living  soul  of  the  dust  ot*  the  earth,  was 


292 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


capable  of  producing  anotlier.  I  now  record  again,  there 
is  not  a  single  proposition  that  my  brother  has  ])ronght 
forward,  nor  a  single  text  of  Scripture,  but  what  has  been 
answered  by  me  ;  and  yet  he  tells  you  of  a  thousand  texts 
he  has  produced  which  I  have  not  noticed ! 

I  promise  you,  right  here,  that  if  I  expend  all  my  wind, 
I  will  speak  out,  distinctly  and  plainly,  that  I  may  be 
understood  by  every  sensible  man — even  if  my  brother 
should  call  you  his  "  dear,  sweet  friends,"  as  he  did  the 
other  day  ;  but  I  will  try  to  use  language  which  does  not 
sound  like  a  mother  petting  her  child.  He  says  that 
Christ  is  not  angel  and  not  man — that  he  is  not  created. 
If  not  a  creature,  then,  of  course,  he  is  uncreated  ;  and 
if  uncreated,  eternal ;  and  if  eternal,  God.  Here  is  the 
conclusion  drawn  fairly  from  the  premises.  This  is  the 
position  I  assume :  that  he  is  not  created,  but  that  all 
things  were  made  by  him,  and  for  him. 

With  regard  to  the  reports  of  my  brother,  that  I  have 
been  in  great  trouble,  and  very  much  concerned  respect- 
ing the  result  of  this  discussion  ;  and  that  he  has  quoted 
a  thousand  passages  of  Scripture  and  more,  and  I  would 
not  answer  him;  if  the  eye  and  countenance  are  any 
index  of  the  sentiments  of  the  heart,  I  know  what  the 
result  of  this  discussion  will  be ;  for  I  see  some  faces 
that  are  exceedingly  long ;  and  I  noticed,  my  brother, 
when  he  went  away,  looked  as  if  he  had  been  deserted 
by  his  best  friends.  When  argument  fails,  he  resorts  to 
the  language  of  Billingsgate ;  and  he  says,  if  we  take  his 
creed  away  from  ours,  we  have  nothing  left — not  enough 
to  save  a  cricket !  The  other  day  he  introduced  devil- 
authority;  now  he  introduces  cricket-theology;  and  at 
another  time,  partridge- theology !  I  regret  that  he  de- 
scends to  use  such  language  as  this ;  and  he  complains 
very  much  of  my  play  of  words.  You  will  remember 
he  gave  me  credit  for  four  things  ;  and  this  language  he 
repeats  again,  and  says  I  remind  him  of  a  dry  pump  that 
sucks  only  wind ;  but  he  sa}S  this  because  1  have  taken 
the  wind  out  of  his  sail.    The  proposition  from  which  my 


DISCUSSIOX  OX  THE  TRIXITT. 


293 


brother  wanders  is  this :  "  Is  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
as  set  forth  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church,  especially  with  regard  to  the  equality  of  Jesus 
Christ  with  the  Father  in  substance,  power,  glory,  and 
eternity,  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  Word  of  God 
But  he  goes  off  to  talk  about  cricket  salvation,  and  the 
amount  of  truth  that  would  be  necessary  to  save  a  cricket, 
and  such  kind  of  stuff  I  I  can  not  conceive  how  ideas 
60  limited  in  themselves,  should  occupy  his  mind,  unless 
he  abounds  in  such  ideas  ;  for  "  out  of  the  abundance  of 
the  heart  the  mouth  speaketh.'' 

He  talks  about  my  exhortation,  and  seems  desperately 
afraid  of  the  impression  that  will  be  made  by  the  great 
fundamental  truths  upon  which  the  hopes  of  the  world 
rest ;  and  he  is  careful  to  admonish  you  that  other  exhor- 
tatiops  are  to  come  :  this  is  a  great  trouble  to  him.  He 
says,  that  worship  is  to  be  paid  to  God,  through  Christ. 
I  wish  to  inquire,  if  we  are  to  understand  by  that  that  he 
does  not  worship  Christ  ?  You  will  remember  that  angels 
in  heaven  worship  him :  the  language  was  quoted,  *•  Let 
all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him.''  Paul  does  not  say 
that  they  should  worship  God  through  him.  The  spirit 
of  revelation  proves  that  he  is  the  proper  object  of  wor- 
ship; that  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him — which 
they,  doubtless,  do,  as  the  Creator  of  the  world.  My 
brother  told  us  that  Christ  was  not  a  creature,  and  not  God. 
And  if  he  is  not  a  creature,  then  he  is  uncreated  and 
eternal,  co-equal  with  the  Father  in  existence,  as  in  other 
respects ;  and  yet  he  declares  that  we  have  a  little  God 
and  a  great  God.  He  complains  now,  that  I  asserted  my 
determination  not  to  abandon  my  p^ition  ;  but,  he  adds, 
the  darkest  hour  is  just  before  the  morning  breaks.  I 
hope,  when  he  goes  Irom  this  place,  that  he  will  do  me 
no  injustice  by  asserting  that  I  yield  my  position ;  for  I 
aver  that  his  powers  of  argument  have  never  made  the 
slightest  impression  upon  me. 

I  sincerely  desire  my  brother's  conversion  to  the  truth ; 
and  I  have  no  desire  that  he  should  continue  to  drive  on 


294 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


his  godless  boat,  but  that  he  sliould  come  under  better 
influences,  and  have  evidence  of  the  great  truth  that  God 
is  one,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  equal  in  substance, 
power,  glory,  and  eternity  ;  that  Jesus  Cin*ist  is  very  God 
and  very  man,  one  united  in  three  persons,  never,  never  to 
be  separated.  I  am  sorry  to  discover  a  disposition  to  a 
little  fever  in  my  brothers  constitution ;  but  I  will  bathe 
him  with  a  little  cold  water  occasionally. 

He  quotes  Clarke  to  prove  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  receives  its  only  support  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment— the  Old  Testament  was  a  shadow  of  things  to 
come.  I  mentioned  that  Dr.  Macknight,  Benson,  and 
Dr.  Coke,  all  harmonized  in  their  views  on  this  subject ; 
and  these  are  all  against  Dr.  Summerbell.  I  ask  if  I  have 
not,  all  the  time,  been  compelled  to  occupy  an  affirma- 
tive position  ?  and  now  he  is  desperately  concerned  about 
the  exhortation  that  is  to  close  this  discussion  ;  and  that 
will  recall,  as  far  as  possible,  all  the  arguments  I  have 
advanced.  If  he  has  advanced  arguments  that  I  have 
not  noticed,  it  has  been  because  they  were  undiscernible 
to  the  naked  eye  ;  not  that  I  have  not  been  able  to  de- 
scend into  the  depths  of  his  mighty  argument. 

Judging  from  the  whole  production  with  which  he  has 
favored  us,  I  suppose,  that  since  he  came  into  the  posses- 
sion of  his  vigor  and  strength,  he  has  been  devoting  him- 
self and  his  attention  to  this  particular  subject ;  and, 
though  the  mountain  has  greatly  labored,  the  world  must 
judge  what  it  has  produced. 

Mk.  Summerbell's  Twentieth  address : 

My  brother  talks  a  good  deal  of  my  greatness ;  my 
friends,  generally,  are  not  so  favorably  impressed.  If  I 
had  a  few^  such  friends  as  my  brother,  I  should  have  a 
great  name  in  the  world.  I  am  glad,  however,  that  he 
thinks  well  of  me.  He  now  says,  that  he  has  answered 
all  of  my  arguments.  It  is  well  he  told  us,  for  I  was  not 
aware  of  it.  Next  he  says,  that  he  icill  answer  them  ! 
Will  it  be  here,  or  somewhere  else  ?    You  will  see.  It 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


295 


is  admitted,  on  the  best  autliorit}',  that  the  Trinity  was 
not  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament.  Xow  is  it  not  an 
odd  thing,  that  four  thousand  years  should  have  passed 
away  before  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  revealed  ? 
My  brother  denounces  such  authors  as  I  have  quoted, 
i.  e.^  Clarke,  Barnes,  Neander,  &c.,  and  says  that  they 
agree  with  me — that  they  have  got  into  the  Trinitarian 
church,  but  don't  belong  there.  At  this  rate  he  will  find 
the  majority  against  him.  And  are  not  the  Scriptures 
equally  against  him  ?  He  now  says,  in  defiance  of  Clarke, 
that  the  Old  Testament  is  full  of  texts  which  prove  the 
equality  of  the  Father  and  Son.  Then  why  does  he  not 
produce  them  ?  And  that  the  sufiering  and  atonement 
of  Jesus  Christ  are  as  plainly  set  forth  as  in  the  Xew. 
True,  but  there  is  no  discussion  on  that.  He  first  said, 
that  the  two  natures  were  united  in  Christ  never  to  be 
separated ;  then  he  said  that  they  were  separated  three 
days  and  three  *nights,  and  now  he  says  that  they  were 
never  to  be  permanently  separated.  He  says  that  he 
can  not  tell  which  Lord  I  thank  ;  that  we  have  a  big  God 
and  a  little  one.  I  might  as  courteously  say,  that  I  can 
not  tell  which  God  he  worships.  We  have  no  big 
God  and  little  God.  "We  have  but  one  God  ;  we  are  not 
Trinitarians.  That  little  God  doctrine,  sir,  is  not  very 
reverential  to  Jesus ;  I  would  rather  you  would  not  use 
it  too  much,  for  you  will  have  to  settle  accounts  with 
Jesus  for  it.  He  speaks  of  the  wise  men  worshi^3ing  the 
babe  that  was  born.  But  does  he  believe  that  that  babe 
was  the  mighty  God  ?  On  Is.  ix,  6,  '*  Unto  us  a  child 
is  born,"  he  tells  us  that  he  does  not ;  "  that  the  child 
born  was  not  the  mighty  God."  Does  he  then  approve 
of  their  worshiping  the  babe,  or  not  ?  He  again  con- 
trives a  plan  to  get  rid  of  me.  My  presence  seems  to 
agitate  my  brother  greatly,  and  he  is  constantly  devising 
some  means  to  get  rid  of  me.  He  first  threatened  to 
give  me  a  water  passage  home  ;  then  to  fill  my  sails  with 
wind  and  speed  me  along.  Then  he  expressed  a  great 
deal  of  regret  at  my  course ;  then  talked  angrily,  but 
anon  gets  iigjo  a  better  hmnor  again. 


296 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


My  brother  says,  that  I  had  the  letter  of  the  brother 
who  joined  the  Christian  church  yesterday,  before  I  came 
into  the  house.    Very  well  I 

Flood. — I  ask  if  my  brother  saw  that  letter  before  he 
came  into  this  house  ? 

SuMMERBELL. — Ycs.    What  of  that  ? 

The  young  man*  wishes  to  speak,  and  appeals  to  the 
Moderators. 

Moderators. — As  his  motives  are  impeached,  he  has 
a  right  to  explain. 

Flood. — I  object.  I  appeal  to  the  rules  of  the  dis- 
cussion.   (They  are  read,  and  prohibit  him.) 

Moderators. — It  is  decided  that  the  young  man  may 
explain,  after  the  discussion  of  the  day  has  closed. 

Summing  lip. — 1.  My  brother  thinks  that  I  have  mis- 
represented him,  in  regard  to  Christ  having  two  Fathers. 
I  have  not.  He  told  us  that  the  Father  was  the  first,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  the  third  person  in  the  Trinity.  He  then 
went  to'the  Scriptures,  to  prove  that  the  Holy  Ghost  (the 
third  person)  begat  Christ ;  then  turned  to  another  text, 
to  show  that  the  Father  (the  first  person  in  the  Trinity) 
begat  him,  and  thought  that  from  this  the  Holy  Ghost 
must  be  a  person  as  truly  as  the  Father,  for  he  begat 
Christ  as  truly  as  the  Father.  According  to  that,  two 
persons  begat  Christ,  and  two  persons  are  the  Father  of 
him !  My  brother  could  not  explain  it,  and  he  never 
will,  for*it  is  a  part  of  a  whole  system  of  error. 

2.  My  friend  has  been  unable,  in  the  five  days'  dis- 
cussion, to  produce  one  single  text  which  proves  the 
personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  a  distinct  person  from 
the  Father.  But  he  has  rather  admitted  that  it  is  not  a 
person,  by  comparing  it  to  a  pendulum  swinging  beneath 
God's  throne,  vibrating  through  heaven,  earth,  and  hell. 

3.  Neither  has  he  produced  one  text  which  proves  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  God,  distinct  from  the  Father. 

*The  young  man,  Mr.  Allison,  professed  that  he  entertained  the 
best  of  feelings  toward  his  Metliodist  brethren,  and  that  he  simply 
left  them  on  account  of  his  convictions  of  Truth,  <i:c. 

% 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


29T 


4.  I  have  proved  to  him,  that  according  to  Trinitarian- 
ism,  there  would  be  at  least  six  spirits  in  the  Godhead, 
and  have  vainly  demanded  of  him,  to  show  why  or 
wherein,  God  the  Father  was  not  as  much  a  spirit  as  the 
Holy  Ghost,  according  to  his  theory. 

5.  In  answer  to  liis  argument  on  the  text,  "The  grace 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you,"  I  referred  him  to 
Rev.  i,  4,  where  the  grace  of  the  seven  spirits  is  invoked. 
His  reply  was,  that  here  John  invoked  the  grace  of  seven 
angels,  &c.,  thus  confounding  his  own  logic. 

6.  I  answered  his  argument  on  "baptizing  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,"  by  showing  that 
thus  also  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire  were  associated  in  bap- 
tism ;  God  with  the  Lamb  in  worship ;  and  the  Lamb 
with  Moses  in  the  song  of  Moses  and  the  Lamb ;  and 
David  with  God  in  worship;  2  Cln-on.  xxix,  20;  which 
would  make  them  all  Gods,  according  to  his  mode  of 
reasoning. 

7.  He  has  not  defended  the  hard  language  they  use 
concerning  Christ,  when  hard  pressed. 

8.  He  has  not  attempted  to  answer  my  argument  on 
Elohim,  except  by  quoting  ex  parte  authors,  that  it 
should  be  translated  "  Gods;"  thus  teaching  three  Gods, 
contrary  to  his  creed. 

9.  He  has  not  answered  my  argument,  showing  the 
contradictions  among  Trinitarians  and  how  they  anathe- 
matize each  other,  being  altogether  unsettled  about  what 
the  true  doctrine  is. 

10.  He  has  not  answered  my  argument,  proving  that 
his  system  in  reality  inculcates  the  idea  of  three  Gods, 
into  which  error  Trinitarians  always  run  when  hard 
pressed. 

11.  I  proved  that  his  own  position,  on  the  Divine 
attributes,  if  true,  annihilated  the  Father;  to  which  he 
has  not  responded. 

12.  He  has  never  told  us  yet,  whether  he  will  worship 
all  of  his  Christ — "very  God  and  very  man"  —  the 
Divine,  and  what  he  calls  the  human  nature  or  "crea- 


298  DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


ture,"  which  is  united  to  Christ  in  one  person,  and 
which,  with  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity,  now  dwells 
in  heaven. 

13.  He  has  not  told  us,  whether  he  will  worship  all  of 
his  God,  or  whether  he  rejects  "God's  body,'-  as  he  calls 
it,  from  his  worship. 

14:.  I  proved  to  him,  that  all  the  "fathers"  of  the 
church  were  against  him,  and  he  has  not  been  able  to 
find  the  Trinity  in  one  of  them. 

15.  I  proved  to  him,  that  all  the  earliest  Christian 
kings,  emperors,  historians,  and  nations,  were  opposed  to 
the  Trinity,  to  which  he  has  not  made  a  solitary  reply. 

16.  I  sliowed  him  that  the  word  Trinity  wasjirst  intro- 
duced into  the  church  by  Theopliilus,  of  Antioch,  after 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  but  not  applied  to  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  till  a  much  later  period. 

17.  I  have  proved  to  him,  that  the  Trinity  was  not 
finished  till  A.  D.  651. 

IS.  My  friend  has  given  up  the  word  TRIXITY ! 
which  stands  at  the  HEAD  of  his  Articles  of  Religion. 

19.  He  admits  that  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity 
is  not  the  Eternal  Son  of  God,  contrary  to  all  orthodox 
faith. 

20.  He  concedes  that  God  now  has  a  body,  contrary 
to  Art.  I,  of  his  creed,  though  he  says  that  he  had  no 
body  for  four  thousand  years. 

21.  He  admits  that  the  human  and  Divine  natures  in 
Christ  were  separated  three  days  and  three  nights,  con- 
trary to  his  creed.  Art.  H. 

22.  But  still  my  friend,  this  morning,  calls  heaven  to 
witness  that  he  has  given  nothing  up  ! 

23.  He  challenged  me  to  explain  how  Christ  could  be 
neither  the  supreme  God  nor  a  creature.  In  reply,  I 
showed  him  that  he  was  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father, 
and  quoted  Neander  and  Mosheim,  showing  that  such 
was  the  opinion  of  the  fathers,  and  the  most  learned  men 
of  the  Christian  church. 

24.  My  brother  has  failed  to  find  the  Trinity  in  the 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TEIXITT. 


299 


Bible.  In  five  clays'  disjnssion,  he  has  failed  to  produce 
one  single  text  to  show  that  we  should  reverence  the 
Trinity,  or  worship  the  Trinity,  or  in  any  way  make  use 
of  the  word  Trinity. 

25.  He  has  lailed  to  produce  one  text  which  says  there 
are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  :  or  one  text,  which 
calls  Christ  '*  very  man,''  or  says  that  he  is  equal  with  the 
Father,  in  substance,  power,  gloiy,  and  eternity ;  or  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  person.  All  these  positions  my 
brother  has  been  unable  to  sustain,  but  puts  off  answer- 
ing my  remarks  in  reference  to  them,  till  some  future 
time.  And  now.  here  we  are,  at  the  last  day  and  hour 
of  the  debate.  He  has  put  them  off,  from  time  to  time, 
thinking  that  they  would  pass  from  the  mind  and  be 
forgotten. 

26.  In  quoting  texts,  he  has  found  himself  unable  to 
sustain  his  doctrine ;  and  has  introduced  words  which 
were  not  found  in  the  Scriptures,  and  relied  on  texts 
which  his  own  authors  give  up  as  not  proving  the  doc- 
trine. 

27.  He  has  quoted  the  Discipline,  where  he  should 
have  quoted  the  Bible,  to  prove  his  doctrine. 

28.  Endeavoring  to  divert  your  minds  from  the  main 
issue  in  the  question,  he  has  gone  off  into  exhortation, 
instead  of  meeting  the  arguments ;  and  endeavored  by 
slaps,  thumps,  and  stamps  on  the  pulpit,  to  create  such 
a  noise  as  to  draw  off  the  attention,  just  when  he  should 
have  been  arguing  the  point. 

29.  It  plainly  appears  that  he  himself  feels  that  he  has 
not  proved  his  docti'ine,  by  his  so  often  exhorting  his 
people  not  to  give  it  up.  As  much  as  to  say.  Although 
I  have  not  been  able  to  prove  it,  yet  I  want  you  to  tak» 
my  word  that  you  can  not  be  saved  without  it. 

30.  I  showed  him  that  Trinitarianism,  according  to 
their  BEST  theory,  is  only  EQUxlL  to  the  Irnnest  form  of 
Socinian  TJrdtananWffi ;  each  system  iiaving  one  God, 
and  no  more ;  and  each  having  one  **  very  man  sacri- 
fice," and  no  more. 


800 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TKIXITY. 


31.  I  proved  that  Trinitarianism.  according  to  its  worst 
view,  divides  the  divine  essence,  and  teaches  three  Gods ; 
mv  brother  hiiuseU"  contending  that  the  Hebrew  word, 
Flohinu  God,  should  be  translated  GODS. 

32.  He  has  not  attempted  an  answer  to  my  arguments 
on  the  infinite  attributes,  that  they  can  not  be  bounded, 
measured,  or  stated  as  a  given  quantity. 

33.  He  has  not  answered  my  argument  from  John  xi, 
15.  where  Jesus  says,  '*  I  am  glatl  for  your  sakes  that  I 
was  not  there." 

34.  He  has  failed  to  answer  my  arguments  on  the 
thousands  of  personal  pronouns  in  the  singular  number, 
applied  to  the  Divine  nature — each  one  of  which  is  an 
incontrovertible  argument  for  the  unity  of  God. 

35.  He  says  that  the  three  persons.  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  all  now  dwell  in  Christ ;  thus  making  the 
three  persons  all  dwell  in  him — another  person,  instead 
of  making  him  one  of  the  three  persons. 

36.  I  showed  that  by  what  they  call  the  Godhead,  they 
mean  simply  the  Divine  nature,  which  is  common  to  dif- 
ferent persons,  or  in  which  different  persons  exist,  the 
same  as  in  one  human  nature  all  mankind  exist;  and 
that  their  unity  of  God  is  no  more  a  unity  of  God,  than 
the  unity  of  the  human  family,  in  one  humanity,  is  a 
unity  of  man ;  so  that  they,  in  reality,  no  more  believe 
in  simply  one  God,  than  in  one  man.  And  I  proved  to 
him  that  the  Hindoos,  with  a  n:iillion  of  gods,  claim  to, 
and  really  do,  believe  in  the  unity  of  God,  in  the  same 
manner  that  he  does,  and  may  be  excused  pom  the  charge 

^  of  believing  in  more  than  one  God,  as  well  as  he. 

37.  I  proved  from  Dr.  Clarke,  that  the  Trinitj'  was 
found  among  the  Hindoo  and  Chinese  idolaters,  and 
worshiped  there  long  before  it  was  known  in  the  Chris- 
tian church.    (See  John  i,  and  Jer.  xxiii,  6.) 

3S.  I  demonstrated  to  him,  that  if  Christ,  both  God 
and  man,  embraced  but  one  person  ;  that  then,  when  God 
left  the  man,  according  to  his  creed  there  was  no  person 
remaining  on  the  cross,  since  there  was  only  one  person, 


DISCUSSION   ON   THE  TRINITY. 


801 


and  that  person  (God)  had  left ;  so  that  no  person  died 
for  us. 

39.  I  presented  him  with  over  thirty  plain  discrepan- 
cies in  his  Articles  of  Religion — and  between  them  and 
their  expositors — to  which  he  has  not  deigned  to  reply. 
He  has  these  yet  to  answer,  or  to  let  it  be  for  ever  known 
that  he  can  not  answer  them. 

40.  I  showed  him  over  thirty  particulars  in  which  they 
make  the  Son  inferior  to  the  Father — none  of  which  he 
has  answered. 

41.  Where  he  has  attempted  replies  to  my  texts,  he 
has,  in  some  places,  doubted  their  truth,  and  in  others, 
their  genuineness ;  but  in  no  case  has  he  found  any  of 
the  peculiarities  of  his  creed  in  the  Word  of  God. 

42.  He  has  complained  that  he  knew  not  that  I  would 
certainly  be  here;  yet  he  himself  set  the  time,  and  I 
received  his  letter  informing  me,  the  Saturday  before 
coming  here,  on  Monday — too  late  to  reply. 

I  have  a  few  moments  left,  and  not  choosing  to  fill  up 
my  time  with  exhortation,  I  will  present  you  with  a 
number  of  texts  on  the  unity  of  God.  Whatever  men 
may  think,  God  is  One,  my  friends ;  and  He  will  ever 
remain — eternally  One. 

Ex.  XX,  3,  First  commandment,  "Thou  shalt  have  no 
other  Gods  before  me."  Not  us,  as  though  there  were 
three  persons. 

Deut.  vi,  4,  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  ONE 
Lord."    Not  Trinity. 

Job  xxxi,  15,  "  Did  not  ONE  fashion  us  ?"  Not  three. 

Zech.  xiv,  9,  "There  shall  be  ONE  Lord,  and  his 
name  One."    Not  three. 

Malachi  ii,  10,  "  Have  we  not  all  ONE  Father  ?"  No- 
thing is  said  of  three. 

Malachi  ii,  10,  "  Hath  not  One  God  created  us  V 

Matt,  xxiii,  9,  "  ONE  is  your  Father."    Not  three. 

Matt,  xix,  17,  "None  is  good  but  ONE,  that  is 
God."    Not  three. 

Mark  xii,  29,  "  The  first  of  all  the  commandments  is, 


802 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRINITY. 


Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  ONE  Lord."  Not 
Trinity. 

Mark  xii,  32,  "  There  is  ONE  God,  and  there  is  none 
other  but  he." 

John  viii,  41,  "  We  have  ONE  Father,  even  God." 

Eom.  iii,  20,  "ONE  God  shall  justify." 

1  Cor.  viii,  4,  "There  is  none  other  God  but  ONE." 
Not  two  others. 

1  Cor.  viii,  6,  "To  us  there  is  but  ONE  God  the  Fa- 
ther."   Not  two  others. 

Gal.  iii,  20,  "God  is  ONE."    Not  God  is  triune. 

Eph.  iv,  4-6,  "  ONE  Lord,  ONE  God  and  Father  of 
all,  who  is  above  all."    Not  equal  simplv. 

1  Tim.  ii,  5,  "  There  is  ONE  God  and  ONE  Mediator." 

James  ii,  19,  "Thou  believest  in  ONE  God:  thou 
doest  w^ell,"  &c. 

Isaiah  xxx,  29,  "  God  is  called  the  mi2;hty  ONE." 

Isa.  Ivii,  15,  "The  High  and  Lofty  OISIE." 

Isa.  xxxvii,  23,  "  The  Holy  ONE."    Not  Holy  three. 

These  are  only  sample  texts — there  are  scores  like 
them;  but  none  which,  like  the  creeds  and  modern  the- 
ology, say  God  is  three.  Could  our  brother  thus  pro- 
duce texts  which  read  that  God  is  three,  surely  he  would 
do  it.    But  he  can  not ;  his  doctrine  is  not  in  the  Bible. 

I  hope  that  my  brother  w^ill  take  these  texts  into  serious 
consideration,  and  remember  that  it  is  not  a  light  matter 
to  multiply  persons  in  the  Godhead.  He  can  not  find 
one  place  in  all  the  Bible  where  it  is  said,  that  there  is 
more  than  one  person  in  the  Godhead.  I  hope  to  see 
the  day  wdien  not  only  he,  but  all  my  friends  here,  will 
agree  with,  me  on  this  point. 

A  word :  debate  is  not  my  sphere.  I  undertook  this 
work  rather  as  a  cross  than  because  I  desired  it.  But  I 
must  defend  my  blessed  Saviour ;  and  to  do  this  I  must 
go  wherever  I  am  called :  not  that  I  wish  to  intimate  that 
my  brother  does  not  love  him,  too.  I  desire  to  advance 
the  truth  concerning  my  Saviour.  How  glorious  it  is  to 
know  that  there  are  many  scores  in  this  house  that  love 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRIiaTY. 


803 


my  Saviour !  May  you  all  be  partners  in  the  joys  of 
His  love.  May  your  lives  be  conformed  to  his  life.  May 
you  strive  in  all  your  ways  to  be  like  him — to  be  con- 
formed to  his  image.  If  you  will  be  like  him,  you  must 
have  his  Spirit — you  must  act  like  him — feel  like  him — 
think  like  him,  and  speak  like  him.  They  know  Christ 
best,  and  honor  him  most,  who  feel  most  of  him  in  their 
hearts.  Doubtless,  God  will  pardon  any  small  eiTor  of 
opinion,  if  the  root  of  the  matter  be  in  us.  We  would 
act  thus  with  an  erring  child  ;  and  God  is  infinitely  better 
than  we  are.  And  now,  in  closing  this  discussion,  let 
me  say  that  I  part  with  my  brother  in  all  good  feeling. 
Although  some  things  may  have  been  said  which  sounded 
hard,  yet  I  am  sure  that  I  hold  no  hard  feelings.  I  hope 
that  we  may  all  live  as  Christians,  die  as  Christians,  and 
appear  in  the  Resurrection  as  Christians — on  the  fair 
banks  of  everlasting  deliverance.  And  bless  God  !  when 
we  see  him  as  he  is,  then  we  will  praise  him  as  we 
ought.  I  thank  you,  gentlemen  Moderators,  for  your 
faithful  labors.  I  thank  the  audience  for  their  patient 
attention.  My  brother  will  join  with  me  in  extending 
to  all,  our  thanks.  I  thank  my  opponent  lor  afibrding 
me  this  opportunity  of  advancing  the  truths  of  the  Chris- 
tian church. 

I  close  the  question  by  expressing  my  regard  for  both 
my  brother  and  his  people.  I  have  respect  and  love  for 
them — some  near  and  dear  to  me  were  once  attached  to 
his  creed,  but  have  since  joined  the  Christian  church.  I 
regard  my  Saviour  as  the  Son  of  God ;  and  when  we 
have  passed  from  the  scenes  of  time  to  those  of  eternity, 
I  hope,  we  shall  meet  many  from  this  discussion,  who 
have  here  learned  to  regard  him  the  same,  and  who  will 
join  in  his  praises  for  ever.  May  God  guide  us,  by  hi-s 
Holy  Spirit,  is  the  prayer  of  your  brother.  May  we  all 
•  be  humble — not  lofty,  proud,  bigoted  and  cruel,  but  gen- 
_  tie,  courteous,  and  inviting;  that  we  may  win  souls  to 
Christ,  and  that  we  may  enjoy  salvation  and  life  everlast- 
ing in  him !  Amen. 


804 


DISCUSSIOX  ox  THE  TEINITY. 


Mr.  Flood's  Twentieth  reply : 

This  is  rather  an  interesting  period  in  this  discnssion, 
however  ultra  some  of  it  may  have  been.  I  heartily 
reciprocate  all  the  personal  teelings  expressed  by  my 
brother,  and  in  doing  so,  I  speak  the  sentiments  of  my 
heart.  At  the  same  time,  I  would  not  have  it  under- 
stood, by  that  remark,  that  my  confidence,  in  the  slight- 
est degree,  in  anything  that  pertains  to  the  great  truths 
involved  in  this  question,  has  suffered  the  least,  by  any 
part  of  the  investigation,  from  the  beginning  to  the 
present  hour ;  but  I  will  not  say  anything,  by  which  my 
brother  may  not  feel  himself  flattered  in  my  closing  re- 
marks. He  says  his  friend  flattered  him — and  I  hope  he 
feels  himself  flattered.  Amid  the  trials  of  life,  when  the 
spirit  is  oppressed,  and  when  we  are  in  trying  circum- 
stances, it  is  agreeable  to  our  feelings  to  meet  with  the 
word  of  cheering  from  those  whom  we  respect,  and  my 
brother  has  expressed  himself  as  entertaining  a  respect 
for  his  opponent.  I  am  happy  to  hear  him  say  that  he 
feels  himself  flattered.  He  proceeds  to  inquire,  "Did 
my  friend  answer  the  argument,  that  three  persons  in  the 
Trinity,  make  three  Gods  ?"  Well,  1  think,  about  as 
Dearly  as  I  can  recollect,  that  every  time  that  my  brother 
has  alluded  to  that  subject,  I  have  answered  him  —  a 
sufficient  number  of  times,  I  think,  for  it  to  be  remem- 
bered. 

I  say  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  I 
have  not  time  again  to  go  over  the  texts  to  prove  the 
personality  of  the  Father,  Son.  and  Holy  Ghost  —  they 
will  have  a  place  in  the  memory  of  many  of  those  as- 
sembled here. 

With  regard  to  baptizing  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  F  assume  that,  as  there  are  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  an  individual  committing  him- 
self to  the  sacred  ordinance,  is  under  equal  obligation  to 
all ;  and  this  accords  with  the  argument,  that  we  should 
honor  the  Son,  even  as  we  honor  the  Father ;  we  are 
tinder  obligation  to  do  so.    I  insist,  at  all  times,  whilst  I 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


305 


maintain  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  I  also 
maintain  a  oneness  of  being  in  God,  as  has  been  so  fre- 
quently stated.  Tiiis  position  was  supported  by  some  of 
the  very  texts  quoted  by  my  brother,  in  his  endeavors  to 
refute  it ;  every  passage  that  asserts  the  unity  of  God,  is 
a  passage  for  me.  I  have  said  that  no  man  has  a  more 
Jiving  confidence  in  the  oneness  of  Jehovah,  than  I  have  ; 
that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  equal  in  sub- 
stance, power,  glory  and  eternity — that  they  are  one  God. 
I  have  assumed  that  the  union  of  the  humanity  and  the 
divinity,  in  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  is  a  myste- 
rious and  wonderful  union ;  and  I  have  never  attempted  to 
explain  its  mystery,  nor  would  I  undertake  to  explain  the 
mystery  of  that  union  that  subsists  between  the  soul  and 
body  of  every  living  man.  I  have  not  the  sliglitest  know- 
ledge how  it  is,  that  soul  and  body  are  united  in  one  per- 
son, and  yet  be  but  one  man ;  the  one,  as  I  have  shown, 
connected  with  the  world  of  matter ;  the  other  with  the 
world  of  spirit,  mysteriously  united  in  one  person, —  the 
one  earthly  and  physical,  the  other  spiritual  and  intellec- 
tual. 1  have  not  attempted  to  explain  this,  for  the  apostle 
says :  "And  without  controversy,  great  is  the  mystery  of 
godliness ;  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the 
spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  imto  the  Gentiles,  be- 
lieved on  in  the  world,  and  received  up  into  glory." 
1  Tim.  iii,  16. 

Mk.  Summerbell. — My  brother  is  bringing  in  new 
matter  in  his  closing  speech,  contrary  to  the  rules  of 
the  discussion. 

Mr.  Flood. — I  think  not.  I  think  I  brought  this  text 
forward  before. 

Moderators. — jSTo. 

Mr.  SuiiMERBELL. — He  may  go  on,  by  permitting  one 
word  of  explanation. 

Mr.  Flood. — Very  well. 

Mr.  Scmmerbell. — "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh."  The 
Christian  doctrine  is,  that  God  was  manifest  in  Christ — 
and  that  thus,  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh. 
26 


306 


DISCUSSIO:^  ON  THE  TlRmTY. 


Kow,  if  I  understand  the  language  of  tlie  apostle  here, 
it  does  not  change  materially  the  sentiment  of  the  text, 
*'God  was  manifested  in  Jesus  Christ,''  in  Jesus  Christ 
God  made  the  manifestation  of  his  nature  to  the  world, 
as  I  have  already  shown  in  a  foi-mer  argument  from  the 
Hebrews. 

My  brother  says  he  has  been  threatened  with  the  flood. 
I  have  not  the  slightest  inclination  to  step  out  of  the 
way,  to  play  off  humor  on  him.  I  resort  to  language  of 
this  kind  only  for  fear  that  truth  should  lose  ground, 
where  it  ought  to  have  advanced.  All  that  I  wish  to 
advance,  is  a  flood  of  argument,  drawn  from  the  Bible 
of  God.  First,  with  regard  to  the  Trinity,  I  assume  that 
the  three  personalities  we  described  in  the  Godhead, 
Father.  Son.  and  Holy  Ghost,  were  supported  by  numer- 
ous proof-texts,  which  were  introduced  in  a  former  ar- 
gument. The  second  branch  of  the  proposition  relates  to 
the  equality  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son.  I  quoted  from 
Philippians,  to  prove  that  the  Father  and  Son  are  equal : 
"  He  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God.*' 
Phil,  ii,  6.  My  brother  seems  to  think  that  the  difl'er- 
ence  between  us  is  not  so  very  great.  Kow  I  have  no 
quarrel  with  my  brother  on  this  subject ;  he  may  come 
as  near  as  he  feels  disposed,  to  the  position  I  occupy ; 
but  I  will  not  insist  on  his  coming  to  it  wholly,  until  his 
judgment  and  conscience  may  assent.  But  I  trust  his 
creed  may  prove  no  barrier  to  his  final  admission  of  the 
truth ;  at  the  same  time,  I  cannot  lose  sight,  nor  fail  to 
expose,  what  I  regard  to  be  important  erroi*s  in  the 
leading  doctrines  of  my  opponent.  My  brother  reverts  to 
the  fact,  that  the  apostle's  commission  was  not  of  man. 
I  admitted  that  he  did  not  receive  it  from  men,  but  from 
Jesus  Christ ;  that  it  was  not  a  mere  human  authority 
that  he  received ;  his  credentials  were  signed  and  sealed 
in  heaven ;  for  the  Saviour  of  the  world  appeared  v^  hen 
he  was  on  a  persecuting  tour,  saying  :  "  Saul.  Saul,  why 
persecutest  thou  me  ?  And  he  said,  Who  art  thou,  Lord  ? 
And  the  Lord  said,  I  am  Jesus  whom  thou  persecutest ; 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


307 


it  is  hard  for  thee  to  kick  against  the  pricks.  And  he, 
trembling,  and  astonished,  said,  Lord,  what  wilt  thou 
have  me  to  do  ?  And  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Arise, 
and  go  into  the  city,  and  it  shall  be  told  thee  what  thou 
shalt  do."  Acts  ix,  4-6.  Thus  I  have  shown  that  where 
the  Saviour  was  not  honored,  the  Father  was  not  hon- 
ored. So  far,  then,  as  the  commission  of  Paul  was  con- 
cerned, it  was  received  from  Jesus  Christ. 

My  opponent  has  insisted  that  if  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  are  three  persons,  they  mitSt,  therefore,  be 
three  beings.  I  must  direct  your  attention  to  this  subject. 
I  admit  that  the  figure  of  water  was  not  originally  my 
own  ;  it  was-  a  feeble  representation,  and  fell  infinitely 
short  of  presenting  the  idea  I  designed  to  represent.  He 
states  that  my  so-called  argument,  was  not  a  sufficient 
arrs\ver  ;  he  insisted  that  I  have  not  proved  the  person- 
ality of  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  thought  I  did,  as  also  his 
divine  attributes.  Though,  perhaps,  my  brother  may 
not  see  fully  the  force  of  my  argument,  I  think  others 
have  seen  and  felt  it  clearly.  I  assumed,  and  proved  by 
texts,  that  personality  belonged  to  Jesus  Christ,  and 
that  he  was  the  Word  which  was  in  the  beginning — the 
Father,  Word,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  that  his  personality  was 
there,  and  that  humanity  was  nothing  at  all,  so  far  as  the 
personality  was  concerned  ;  and  that  it  did  not  increase 
the  number  of  persons  ;  that  the  humanity  was  associated 
with  it  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  Hence,  Jesus 
Christ  possessed  all  the  infinite  perfections  of  Jehovah — • 
all  power  in  heaven  and  earth.  ♦ 

My  brother  has  stated  that  though  he  possessed  all 
power  in  heaven  and  earth,  (and  on  which  I  founded  an 
argument)  that  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  might  be 
given,  and  yet  there  was  power  reserved.  If  this  be 
true,  God  is  deprived  of  that  power  that  is  essential  to 
exert  a  supreme  authority  over  heaven  and  earth ;  while 
this  power  is  delegated,  it  limits  Jehovah  in  conception; 
dethrones  him  in  heaven,  and  denies  him  power  on  earth. 
If  this  be  true,  I  have  assumed,  that  the  moment  you 


308 


DISCUSSION  OX  THE  TRIXITY. 


limit  the  perfections  of  Jehovah,  you  annihilate  God,  and 
leave  the  universe  an  orphan.  My  brother  says,  I  have 
still  been  putting  oft*  his  arguments.  I  have  kept  pace 
with  him,  except  in  one  or  two  arguments  that  were 
irrelevant;  I  have  not  put  off  a  single  argument  that  I 
regarded  as  proper  to  be  noticed,  or  that  had  any  possible 
bearing  upon  the  subject — and  indeed  many  others  I  have 
noticed  that  had  no  bearing  w4iatever. 

He  thanks  his  friend  for  this  chance  of  discussion :  my 
brother  is  welcome,  I  do  not  charge  him  one  cent  for  all 
the  advantages  he  may  receive ;  and  I  assure  you,  I 
thank  my  brother  for  the  opportunity  ;  and  I  may  hope, 
that  the  good  results  of  this  debate,  both  for  this  commu- 
nity and  elsewhere,  may  survive  me  ;  and  w'hen"  perhaps, 
in  some  far  distant  clime  1  may  bend  my  steps — for 
I  have  had  such  thoughts,  such  might  be  my  purpose, 
that  I  might  not  always  peregrinate  in  this  region,  the 
place  of  my  nativity,  and  if  it  should  be  that  I  drop  my 
worn-out  frame,  and  lay  it  down  in  some  Western  prairie 
— wherever  may  be  my  final  resting-i)lace,  I  shall  ever 
look  back  upon  the  scenes  and  events  of  this  discussion 
without  any  feelings  of  regret.  I  feel  a  consciousness  in 
the  power  of  divine  truth,  and  I  thank  my  brother  for 
the  opportunity^  of  investigating  these  points  of  dift'erence, 
that  we  may  see  how  nearly  we  agree,  rather  than  how 
widely  we  difier.  I  believe  it  is  the  duty  of  the  religious 
world,  to  see  how  nearly  they  are  united  in  the  great 
fundamental  principles  of  divine  truth,  instead  of  ascer- 
taining how  far  they  are  apart.  Every  man  of  enlarged 
and  enlightened  mind,  and  every  soul  imbued  with  the 
spirit  of  tohrist,  will  not  certainly  fail  to  respond  a  hearty 
amen,  to  the  expressions  of  my  brother  upon  this  point. 
He  says,  he  entertains  none  but  feelings  of  respect  for 
me  and  my  people.  I  have  known  many  among  his 
brethren,  whom  I  regarded  with  high  esteem,  though  I 
believed  them  in  error  upon  some  points ;  yet  I  doubt 
not,  that  in  heaven's  high  and  holy  place,  they  will 
mingle  their  songs  of  rejoicing  with  us  for  ever  and  ever. 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


309 


I  remark,  in  conchisioii,  with  respect  to  my  brother's 
attempting  to  prove  that  God  the  Father  was  the  Creator, 
we  find  that  Christ,  also,  is  represented  as  being  the 
Creator;  hence,  God  is  Christ,  and  Christ  is  God. 

I  have  to  say  to  my  respected  auditors,  that  I  have  no- 
thing but  feelings  of  good-will,  and  sentiments  of  respect 
for  you,  which  I  shall  retain  when  I  shall  be  separated 
from  you — whether,  in  God's  Providence,  I  am  permitted 
to  mingle  with  you  again  or  not.  And  I  most  heartily 
thank  you,  my  friends,  that  when  it  was  thought  best 
to  have  an  investigation  of  these  important  truths,  that 
you  did  me  the  honor,  to  which  I  had  not  aspired,  to 
call  upon  me  to  conduct  this  discussion ;  and  which 
many  of  my  brethren  might  have  conducted  with  greater 
ability.  I  thank  my  friends  for  the  honor  they  have  done 
me,  and  for  the  noble  generosity  they  have  manifested — 
and  I  might  advert  to  the  very  kind  and  courteous  man- 
ner in  which  I  have  been  treated  by  my  brother's  friends. 
I  have  been  to  their  tables  since  I  have  been  here,  and  I 
intend  to  have  the  privilege  of  again  breaking  bread  with 
some  of  them  before  I  leave.  But  I  still  say,  that  my 
hope  of  salvation  is  in  the  existence  of  the  three  persons 
in  the  Trinity,  possessing  alike  the  attributes  of  the  God- 
head, equal  in  substance,  power,  glory  and  eternity. 
And  it  is  upon  this  ground  that  I  trust  my  hopes  of  sal- 
vation in  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  thank  God  the 
Father;  I  thank  God  the  Son;  and  I  thank  God  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  call  heaven  to  witness  that  my  trust  of  salva- 
tion is  in  the  boundless  merit  of  Christ  crucified  ;  and  I 
shall  hope,  if  my  brother  should  pass  before  me  from 
this  world  of  strife  and  sorrow,  to  meet  him,  and  greet 
him  as  an  heir  of  immortality,  sharing  in  the  glory  that 
is  reserved  for  the  foithful.  I  thank  my  God  there  is  a 
crown  of  glory  which  shall  be  given  to  the  faitliful — and 
not  to  me  only,  but  to  all  those  who  love  his  appearing. 
I  urge  this  upon  you  as  Christians,  daily,  honestly,  weigh 
these  things  with  yourselves  and  with  God — and  I  speak 
thus  to  all,  without  regard  to  party.    Let  your  Bible  be 


310 


DISCUSSION  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


your  rule  of  faith  and  practice — take  it  to  your  chamber, 
and  upon  your  knees  before  God,  seek  for  truth  as  for 
hidden  treasure,  and  the  light  of  his  spirit  will  be  poured 
upon  an  inquiring  mind — the  truth,  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  will 
shine  upon  you  in  all  its  glory.  You  that  love  God  and 
are  striving  for  heaven,  follow  on  in  your  onward  course; 
whatever  you  do,  be  sure  that  your  views  are  right,  but 
do  not  be  moved  by  every  wind  of  doctrine — do  not  let  go 
your  hold  upon  the  hope  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  reference 
to  my  manner,  I  may  say,  that  however  tart  it  may  have 
seemed,  it  was  only  in  view  of  the  strength  of  what  I 
regarded  as  truth  ;  and  hence,  in  all  kindness  to  my  bro- 
ther. In  conclusion,  it  is  my  purpose  to  adhere  to  these 
gospel  truths,  to  the  latest  hour  of  my  life ;  and  what- 
ever may  be  of  truth  in  this  blessed  doctrine  that  we  do 
not  now  see,  we  shall  know  it  all  when  we  enter  into  the 
knowledge  of  angels. 

I  thank  you,  gentlemen  Moderators,  for  your  kindness, 
and  for  the  undoubted  honesty,  manliness,  and  nobleness, 
with  \Yiiich  you  have  presided  over  our  debate.  And  I 
would  also  convey  my  thanks  to  those  gentlemen,  for 
their  fiaithful  attention  in  recording  our  words.  This  is 
all  I  wish  to  say  to  you.  I  pray  God's  blessing  upon  you 
all,  and  may  it  continue  to  rest  upon  you  till  the  end  of 
life  ;  and  may  we  enter  heaven  at  last,  and  then  may  we 
shout  to  Him  who  hath  washed  us !  Then  shall  we  tri- 
umph for  evermore  in  the  presence  chamber  of  the  Al- 
mighty, and  share  the  fullness  of  his  redeeming  mercy ! 


DISCUSSION 

ON 

..  COJ^STITUTIOTsS  AJsD  DISCIPm^ES. 


PROPOSITION  POR  LISCrSSIOK. 

'*  Is  the  Christian  Church,  at  all  times  subsequent  to  the  Apos- 
tolic Age,  prohibited  from  making  Constitutions  and  Disciplines 
for  her  government  ? " 

N.  SuMiiERBELL  affirms  ;  Rey.  J.  M.  Flood  denies. 

Me  Su:iDiERBELL's  Twenty-first  address  : 

My  first  position  on  this  question  is,  that  if  it  is  right 
to  make  Constitutions  and  Disciplines  for  the  government 
of  the  Church,  that  it  is  right  to  make  tlie  best  we  can, 
which  is  all  that  can  be  required  of  us  ;  and  that  when 
we  have  thus  done,  the  majority  are  to  decide,  in  case  of 
disagreement ;  for  where  anything  is  left  to  a  plurality 
of  persons,  the  majority  must  decide  what  is  right,  and 
the  majority  must  rule.  If  this  be  right,  and  1  do  not 
see  how  any  man  can  question  it,  then  it  follows  of 
necessity  that  it  is  wrong  to  resist ;  for  two  opposites  can 
not  be  right.  If,  then,  it  is  right  to  make  a  Constitution, 
it  is  right  for  the  majority  to  decide  upon  it,  and  it  is 
right  to  execute  it ;  and  if  it  be  right  to  enforce  it,  then 
it  is  sin  to  resist  it.  The  conchision  then  is,  that  as  my 
brother  admits  all  this,  he  is  bound  to  submit  to  the 
majority.  The  Catholics  are  in  the  majority,  and  believ- 
ing my  brother's  principles,  have  legislated  for  the 
Church ;  and  it  is  right  for  them  to  enforce  their  laws, 
and  wrong  in  my  brother  to  resist  them.  Their  laws 
have  the  precedence  of  all  human  legislation  in  the 
Church,  and  my  brother  is  bound  to  submit  to  them,  if 
his  premises  be  true. 

The  objection  that  their  laws  are  not  according  to  the 
Bible,  and  that  ice  have  the  right  of  private  judgment, 
will  not  avail,  as  the  minority  must  always  submit  to  the 

311 


312 


DISCUSSION  ON 


majority  in  all  popular  legislation  ;  and  they  think  that 
their  laws  are  according  to  the  Bible.  Private  judgment 
and  law  can  not  be  expected  to  agree.  Now,  we  object 
to  the  right  to  legislate  for  God's  people,  and  so  reject 
the  whole  system. 

1.  We  think  that  the  Bible  contains  the  only  truth 
which  God  has  commanded  us  to  believe: 

2.  And  the  only  law  which  He  has  commanded  us  to 
obey ;  and  we  hear  not  the  voice  of  strangers. 

The  Bible  assures  us,  that  to  fear  God  and  keep  his 
commandments  is  the  whole  duty  of  man,  and  promises 
salvation  only  to  those  who  believe  his  truth  and  obey  his 
law.  Those  who  deny  that  God  designed  this  law  of 
love  to  guide  our  conduct,  and  this  truth  of  heaven  to 
guide  our  faith,  are  certainly  under  obligations  to  tell  us 
what  they  were  designed  for !  But  if  this  is  admitted  by 
them,  then  to  deny  its  perfection,  is  to  challenge  God's  wis- 
dom, and  to  reject  his  revelation  ;  while  to  doubt  its  suffi- 
ciency, is  to  impeach  his  goodness,  and  to  deny  his  "Word. 

The  Bible  assures  us,  that,  Ps.  xix,  7,  "  The  law  of 
the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul ;"  and  that 

2  Tim.  iii,  16,  The  Scriptures  make  the  man  of  God 
jperfect. 

Even  the  "  Discipline'''^  declares  that  "  The  Word  of 
God  is  the  highest  authority,  and  only  ultimate  appeal  in 
the  church,"  p.  80. 

Jesus,  Jdmsclf^  assumed  not  to  act  independent  of  God. 

John  xiv,  31,  "As  the  Father  gave  me  a  command- 
ment, even  so  I  do but  they  legislate  without  a  com- 
mandment. 

But  Jesus  Said,  Matt,  xv,  13,  "  Every  plant  which  my 
heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted,  shall  be  rooted  up." 

Luke  ii,  49,  "I  must  be  Sihowtmy  Father'' s  business." 

John  viii,  3,  "I  do  nothing  of  myself,  but  as  the 
Father  hath  taught  me  so  I  speak." 

John  X,  37,  "If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father, 
believe  me  not."  But  they  ordain  novel  faiths  not  com- 
manded by  God,  and  demand  that  we  believe  them  ;  yea, 


CONSTITUTIOXS  AND  DISCIPLINES. 


818 


they  claim  the  right  to  legislate  over  God's  kingdom, 
even  to  the  making  of  Constitutions  for  its  government. 
The  Constitution  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  is  a 
little  book  of  no  great  pretensions,  if  we  may  judge  from 
its  size.    Let  us  examine  it,  and  see  what  it  really  is. 

1.  It  deprives  colored  people  of  their  rights. 

I  think  that  the  Word  of  God  makes  no  distinction 
between  the  white  and  colored  man.  I  wish  my  brother 
to  pay  particular  attention  to  this,  for  he  who  would 
deprive  a  colored  man  of  his  rights  jSTorth,  would  enslave 
him  in  the  South. 

2.  It  says  that  the  Bible  contains  all  things  necessary 
to  salvation,  and  that  whatever  is  not  there,  is  not  re- 
quired to  be  believed.  So  that  my  brother  has  failed  on 
the  question  at  the  very  outset — his  own  Creed  deciding 
against  him. 

3.  It  gives  the  church  a  wrong  name.  It  calls  it  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church  ;  a  name  which  God  never 
gave  it,  nor  Christ,  nor  the  apostles,  and  it  is  a  strange 
thing  for  children  to  name  themselves. 

4.  It  deprives  God's  children  of  full  membership, 
unless  they  can  admit  all  of  it  to  be  correct ;  thus  requir- 
ing more  than  God  requires.    P.  16. 

.5.  The  candidate  for  the  ministry  must  submit  to  this 
book,  as  well  as  the  Bible,  before  he  can  be  received  into 
the  ministry.    P.  M. 

6.  It  deprives  genuine  converts  from  full  communion, 
until  they  have  i)een  in  the  church  six  months.  The 
whole  three  thousand  converts  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
would  have  been  deprived  of  full  fellowship  in  the 
Church,  by  this  Constitution. 

7.  It  gives  the  children  of  the  members  of  their  own 
Church,  advantages  which  it  withholds  from  the  children 
of  the  members  of  other  churches,  who  are  equally  good. 

8.  It  enjoins  infant  sprinkling^  which  is  nowhere 
taught  in  the  Word  of  God,  either  by  precept  or  example. 

9.  It  encourages  three  modes  of  baptism,  which  all 
know  must  be  wrong ;  for  Jesus,  our  example,  was  bap- 

27 


814 


DISCUSSION  OX 


tized  but  once^  aud  of  course,  in  but  one  icay^  and  that 
way  alone  can  be  right. 

10.  It  orders  the  naming  of  children  at  their  baptism; 
a  Koman  Catholic  custom,  quite  out  of  place,  as  the  child 
has  been  named  long  betbre. 

11.  It  says  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only ;  con- 
trary to  the  Bible,  which  says,  that  "  by  works  a  man  is 
justified,  and  not  by  faith  onhjp  James  ii,  24.  So  that, 
small  as  it  is,  its  errors  are  many ;  and  how  could  it  be 
otherwise  ?  The  very  desire  for  a  Discipline  shows  a 
dissatisfaction  with  the  Bible,  and  of  course,  a  desire  for 
something  which  is  not  in  the  Bible ;  for  no  change 
"would  be  required,  if  no  alteration  was  desired. 

I  want  my  bi\>ther  to  give  a  particular  answer  to  each 
of  these  eleven  objections,  and  to  tell  us  plainly  whether 
he  approves  or  disapproves  of  them.  Jesus  says,  "that 
the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over  thera, 
and  they  that  are  great  exercise  authority  upon  them, 
but  it  shall  not  be  so  among  us."  Matt,  xx,  25.  And 
against  all  these  attempts  to  lord  it  over  God's  heritage, 
and  make  human  Constitutions,  I  urge  the  all-sufiiciency 
of  the  Word  of  God.  for  the  following  reasons : 

1st.  It  teaches  us  how  to  fear  God  and  keep  his  com- 
mandments ;  which  is  the  whole  dut}^  of  man. — Ecc.  xii, 
13.    See  also  Psalm  cxix. 

2d.  They  are  to  be  studied  by  the  people.  "  Search 
the  Scriptures." — John  v,  19. 

3d.  It  is  not  to  be  interpreted  privately,  as  the  pro- 
perty of  a  privileged  class,  but  for  the  public.  "  He  that 
hath  ears  to  hear  let  him  hear,  for  no  prophecy  of  Scrip- 
ture is  of  any  private  interpretation,  for  prophecy  came 
not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man :  but  Holy  men  of 
God,  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." — 
2  Pet.  i,  20. 

4th.  It  can  be  understood  b}''  children.  "  From  a 
child  thou  hast  known  the  Scriptures,  which  are  able  to 
make  thee  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is 
in  Christ  Jesus."  2  Tim.  iii,  15.    See  also,  fourth  chap 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES. 


315 


5th.  It  is  a  perfect  system  of  doctrine  and  discipline. 
"All  Scripture  given  by  inspiration  of  God.  is  protitable 
for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
righteousness :  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect^ 
thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works.'' — 2  Tim.  iii, 
16,  17. 

6lh.  The  human  Disciplines  are  not  so.  "In  vain  do 
ye  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments 
of  men." — Mark  vii,  7, 13. 

7th.  Traditions  lead  to  transgression.  "Why  do  ye 
transgress  the  commandment  of  God  by  your  tradition  ? 
Ye  have  made  the  commandment  of  God  of  none  efiect 
by  your  tradition.'' — Matt,  xv,  3,  6. 

8th.  The  design  of  the  Gospels  proves  their  suffi- 
ciency. "  These  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God;  and  that  believing 
ye  might  have  life  through  his  name." — John  xx,  31. 

9th.  Those  who  will  not  hear  the  Scriptures  are  hope- 
less. "  If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  nei- 
ther will  they  be  persuaded  though  one  rose  from  the 
dead."— Luke  xvi,  31. 

10th.  The  most  plausible  objection  against  the  Bible, 
as  an  all-sufficient  rule,  is  that  proposed  by  the  Jesuits 
and  reiterated  by  ignorant  Protestants,  viz;  ''Is  the  Bible 
the  rule  as  it  lies  on  the  shelf?  the  Bible  as  you  peruse 
it  ?  or,  is  your  opinion  of  the  Bible  the  rule  ?  "  To  which 
the  reply  is  sufficient,  Is  your  creed  or  traditions  the  rule 
as  they  lie  on  the  shelf  \  or  as  you  peruse  them  ?  or  is 
your  opinion  of  them  your  rule  ?  Every  objection  urged 
against  the  Bible  applies  with  fourfold  force  against  ail 
other  rules. 

11th.  ]Xo  man  is  capable  of  making  rules  for  that 
which  he  does  not  understand ;  hence,  human  rules  are 
necessarily  imperfect,  originating,  as  they  do,  with  those 
who  acknowledge  religion  to  be  a  mystery,  and  who  do 
.not  understand  our  nature.  God,  alone,  understands  our 
nature  and  its  wants,  and  the  correct  principles  of  its 
government. 


316 


DISCUSSION  ON 


12th.  Other  rules  are  proved  to  be  imperfect,  not  only 
by  their  diversity,  but  by  their  entire  failure  either  to 
unite  the  clmrch,  or  to  keep  it  pure. 

13th.  There  is  no  advance  in  the  Creed,  it  is  the  stereo- 
typecl  error  of  an  ignorant  and  barbarous  age.  To  see 
it  we  look  back,  and  they  are  chained  back  who  embrace 
it;  and  such,  not  only  caiise^  but  continue  divisions  in 
the  church  of  Christ. 

14tli.  To  be  reconciled  to  God — the  sum  of  religion 
is  to  be  reconciled  to  God's  law — God's  will ;  that  is  to 
be  reconciled  to  the  Bible.  This  leads  to  reconciliation 
with  all  the  children  of  God.  But  the  adoption  of  a 
human  Creed,  while  it  reconciles  us  to  a  party,  separates 
us  from  our  fellow  Christians,  and  can  never  assure  us  of 
reconciliation  to  God — since  we  are  not  assured  that  the 
Creed  itself  is  approved  by  God.  It  seems  to  me,  that 
while  we  only  see  in  part,  and  know  in  part,  we  should 
desire  to  be  guided  wholly  by  the  divine  rule,  instead  of 
impeaching  its  perfection,  and  substituting  other  laws. 
Bible  laws  are  unappreciated,  simply  because  they  are 
unstudied  ;  and  unstudied,  because  the  people  are  taught 
that  they  are  not'a  sufficient  rule  for  the  Church. 

loth.  That  there  may  be  true  religion  without  human 
forms,  an  evangelical  faith  without  human  Creeds,  and  a 
true  Church  without  sectarianism,  is  just  as  true,  as  that 
the  true  Church  existed  prior  to  these  forms,  creeds,  and 
sects. 

16th.  The  Christians  hold  it  as  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  our  most  holy  religion,  that  we  receive  the  Bible 
as  our  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
other  authoritative  rules  ;  but  in  this  we  professs  not  to 
have  been  actuated  by  singular  motives,  but  rather  to 
have  embraced  the  principles  ever  advocated  by  the 
wisest  and  best  men,  whose  virtues  have  adorned  the 
Christian  religion.  Turn  to  which  of  the  great  expounders 
of  our  faith  we  will,  and  we  find  them  ever  defending 
this  cardinal  principle. 

I  lay  my  hand  on  the   Soripiure  Manual^'*  published 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES.  317 


and  commended  by  the  brightest  constellation  of  Ameri- 
can ministers,  and  I  read  tliat — 

"  The  only  God-given  rale  of  faith  and  practice  is  the 
Bible." 

I  take  np  the  ^^Westminster  Asserribly^s  Confession 
of  FaitTi^^  and  I  read  there,  that — 

"  Tiie  Bible  contains  tlie  whole  counsel  of  God,  con- 
cerning all  things  necessary  for  his  own  glory,  or  man's 
salvation,  faith  and  life," 

If  I  turn  to  the  most  popular  hymn  books,  I  still  read: 

"Men's  books  with  heaps  of  chaff  are  stored, 
God's  book,  the  golden  grains  afford." 

Dr.  Lyman  BeecJier^  one  of  America's  most  honored 
ministers,  says: 

"  It  is  too  late  in  the  day  to  force  Creeds  down  men's 
throats  !    "We  must  rely  upon  Biblical  interpretation." 

I  open  Butterwortli' s  Concordance^  improved  hy 
Dr.  Adam  Clarl:e^^  and  find,  There  is  nothing  rela- 
tive to  the  actions,  words,  or  thoughts  of  men,  nor  any- 
thing respecting  our  duty  to  God  or  men,  but  what  is 
included  or  inculcated  in  the  sacred  Oracles,"  The 
Bible,  it  calls,  "  The  Christian's  storehouse  of  all  sup- 
plies ;  his  museum  of  the  greatest  rarities  and  curiosities ; 
his  sanctuary  and  hiding-place  ;  his  glass,  tlu^ugh  which 
are  seen  all  objects,  both  of  time  and  eterenity — and  in 
which  the  sinner  may  ever  see  reflected,  the  moral  image 
of  the  soul," 

The  honored  RicTiard  Baxter  says,  "  The  rule  that  all 
must  agree  in,  must  be  one  that  is  above  all.  Never 
will  the  Church  iiave  full  unity,  till  the  SCRIPTURE 
SUFFICIENCY  be  more  generally  acknowledged.  You 
complain  of  many  opinions,  and  ways  ;  and  many  you 
will  still  have,  till  the  ONE  RULE— the  Scriptures— be 
the  standard  of  our  religion.  Two  things  have  set  the 
Church  on  fire,  and  been  the  plagues  of  it  above  one 
thousand  years.  First;  Enlarging  our  creed,  and  making 
more  fundamentals  than  God  ever  made ;  and  Second, 


318 


DISCUSSION  ON 


Composing,  and  so  imposing  onr  creeds  and  confessions, 
in  our  own  words  and  phrases." 

Milton^  the  immortal  poet,  says,  "  For  my  part,  I  ad- 
here to  the  Holy  Serij^tures  alone." 

Wadington^  beloved  of  all,  says,  "The  first  Christians 
had  no  written  creed — they  expressed  their  belief  in  the 
language  of  Scripture — therefore,  their  variations  were 
without  schism,  and  their  diiierences  without  acrimony." 

21.  D^Auhigne  says,  "  The  all-sufficiency  of  the  Word 
is  clearly  established" — "  if,  therefore,  any  ofier  you  as  a 
rule,  traditions,  either  of  the  earlier  ages,  or  of  the 
Reformation,  reject  them."  "  Endure,  I  implore  you,  my 
reiterated  entreaties  in  regard  to  it." 

Mr.  Flood's  Twenty-first  reply : 

1  had  hoped,  that  my  brother  would  have  confined 
himself  to  the  proposition,  that  the  making  of  a  Consti- 
tution and  Discipline  for  the  government  of  the  Church, 
is  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  or  is  positively  prohib- 
ited. The  first  thing  to  which  he  directs  your  attention, 
is,  the  work  containing  the  Constitution  and  Discipline 
of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  which,  he  says,  is  a 
little  book  of  no  consequence.  I  hold  the  little  book  in 
my  hand.  In  Art.  Vll,  it  is  said,  "  Neither  the  General 
Conference,  nor  any  Annual  Conference,  shall  assume 
power,  to  authorize  or  sanction  any  thing  inconsistent 
with  the  morality  of  the  Holy  Scriptures." 

This  is  the  principle  which  I  defend.  The  Church  has 
a  right  to  form  and  enforce  rules,  only  so  far  as  they  are 
in  accordance  with  the  Word  of  God.  The  rule  that 
relates  to  the  expulsion  of  numbers,  and  all  Church 
trials,  it  is  stated,  should  be  conducted  on  Gospel  prin- 
ciples only.  My  brother  then  quotes  several  passages  of 
Scripture,  to  show  that  the  Bible  is  an  all-sufficient  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.  "All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspi- 
ration of  God,"  cfcc.  "  If  any  man  teach  othei-wise,  and 
consent  not  to  wholesome  words,  even  the  words  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is  accord- 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES. 


819 


ing  to  godliness,  he  is  proud,  knowing  nothing,  but 
doting  about  questions  and  strifes  of  words."  1  Tim.  vi, 
3.  My  brother  displayed  the  fruits  of  his  knowledge  by 
turning  round,  and  charging  his  opponent  that  he  was 
thus  proud,  and  referred  to  a  passage  in  the  Psalms,  try- 
ing to  make  the  impression  upon  the  minds  of  his  breth- 
ren, that  he  was  one  of  those  proud  boasters.  AVhat 
that  has  to  do  with  the  right  of  the  Church  to  make  a 
Constitution,  I  am  not  able  to  say. 

"All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  &c. 
What  application  this  has  to  Church  government,  I  am 
not  able  to  say.  My  brother  is  entitled  to  great  credit 
for  theological  research.  I  imagined  that  we  met  for  the 
purpose  of  discussing  the  right  to  make  a  Constitution, 
&c.  He  says,  all  Scripture  is  profitable;  we  agree — for 
instruction,  we  agree.  But  this  is  all  addressed  to  the 
man  of  God,  not  to  the  Church.  The  Church,  signifies  a 
body  met  together  to  transact  business,  whether  religious 
or  not;  it  is  applicable  to  any  civil  body.  (You  may 
shake  your  head).  Lawful  or  unlawful,  the  term,  in  its 
original  meaning,  was  thus  used;  but,  by  common  con- 
sent, it  applies  to  the  church  universal — or,  in  two  senses, 
embraces  the  Church  militant  and  the  Church  trium])h- 
ant.  Drs.  Benson,  Clarke,  Watson,  Buck,  and  all  otiier 
authors  tliat  have  treated  upon  this  subject,  give  the 
same  opinion.  My  opponent  then  proceeds  to  examine 
this  little  book,  and  speaks  of  it  in  a  most  contemptuous 
manner — holds  it  up  to  the  public,  and  says,  I  have 
denied  portions  of  it.  I  desire  my  audience  to  notice 
the  intentions  of  my  brother  to  dodge  the  question.  We 
have  a  little  more  latitude  than  on  the  solemn  subjects 
we  treated  of  before,  and  I  warn  him  that  I  shall  take 
ofi*  my  gloves.  He  says,  the  colored  people  are  denied 
their  rights. 

The  Article  says  that  all  white  male  members,  in  full 
communion  and  fellowship,  of  twenty-one  years  of  age, 
shall  be  entitled  to  vote.  This  rule  arose  from  the  fact, 
of  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  southern  states,  where 


320 


DISCUSSION  ON 


it  was  known  that  a  slave  might  be  influenced  bj  the 
master.  Tliere  are  some  little  things  in  the  Discipline  that 
I  object  to,  and  I  agitated  this  matter  at  the  late  General 
Conference,  have  a  nile  against  stationing  ministers, 
except  for  a  limited  time,  and  some  of  iis  thought  that  it 
might  be  improved.  But  this  does  not  produce  an  alien- 
ation of  mv  affections  from  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church.  I  never  expect  to  find  any  body  of  men  agree- 
ing with  me  in  every  particular.  But  my  brother  puts 
words  into  my  mouth,  and  then  draws  his  own  conclu- 
sions. He  goes  on  from  talking  about  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church,  to  talking.about  infant  baptism;  and 
if  he  supposes  I  am  going  to  chase  him  all  over  the 
world,  he  is  quite  mistaken.  He  reminded  me,  in  this 
performance,  of  the  sailor,  who  had  been  accustomed  to  a 
seafaring  life,  but  concluded  to  change  it  for  the  farming 
business.  The  farmer  who  hired  him,  took  him  to  a  fal- 
low field,  to  give  him  some  lessons  in  plowing:  '*  Which 
way  shall  I  go  asked  the  sailor.  '*Just  go  toward 
that  red  heifer,"  said  the  farmer,  pointing,  as  he  spoke, 
to  a  heifer  just  across  the  field.  He  started,  and  the  far- 
mer supposed  it  would  be  all  right.  An  hour  or  two 
afterward,  when  he  returned  to  see  how  his  new  man 
was  getting  along,  he  found  the  field  covered  over  with 
marks  in  ever}'  possible  direction,  and  on  the  farmer  in- 
quiring what  he  had  been  doing,  "  I  am  following  the 
red  heifer,"  said  he.  I  do  not  intend  to  follow  the  red 
heifer  :  not  that  I  compare  my  brother  to  one. 

He  feels  like  the  Irishman,  who,  with  a  companion, 
saw  a  lot  of  horses  in  the  field  :     I  suppose,"  said  Pat, 

we  are  as  much  entitled  to  ride,  as  to  walk,  in  this  free 
country ;"  so  one  took  an  old  horse,  and  the  other  a 
young  one.  They  had  never  been  on  horses  before.  The 
young  horse  began  to  kick  up,  and  try  to  throw  his 
rider :  poor  Pat  was  frightened,  and  screauied,  Help 
and  murder,"  holding  on  to  the  animal's  mane  with  all 
his  might:  ''Why  don't  you  get  off ?"  shouts  out  his 
companion  to  him.   "  I  can  hardly  stick  on,  so  how  shall 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES. 


821 


I  get  off?"  replied  he.  So  with  my  friend,  he  can  hardly 
stick  on,  so  how  shall  he  get  off  ?  He  comes  here  to 
prove  that  we  liave  no  right  to  make  a  Constitution  and 


he  speaks  of  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  and  says  that 
his  opponent  would  attempt  to  exercise  this  influence 
over  him  ;  so  that  I  am  charged  with  hypocrisy  and  vain 
deceit ;  and  yet,  he  hoped  in  his  prayer,  that  no  word 
would  be  uttered  that  would  not  be  in  accordance  with 
the  dignity  and  position  of  Christian  ministers.  With 
respect  to  the  passage  he  quoted  from  Peter:  '-The 
Scriptures  are  sufficient  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation," 
&c.,  there  is  no  church  in  the  land  that  teaches  anything 
else.  My  brother  says  that  to  them  the  Bible  is  the  only 
and  all-sufficient  nile  of  faith,  and  practice.  I  have  before 
me  that  which  seems  to  be  evidence  to  the  contrary. 

Mr.  Flood  begins  to  read  from  the  Minutes  of  the 
Deer  Creek  Christian  Conference :  "  That  a  committee 

of  three  be  appointed  to  examine  the  standing  of  ," 

&c.,  &c. 

Me.  Scmmereell. — I  object  to  his  reading  that  which 
impeaches  the  character  of  any  person. 

Mr.  Flood. — I  will  not  be  interrupted  in  this  way.  I 
insist  upon  my  brother  taking  his  seat. 

Me.  Scmmereell. — I  appeal  to  the  Moderators. 
Me.  Flood. — I  want  to  show  you  how  you  do  busi- 
ness.   That  you  have  a  Discipline,  and  what  it  is.  It 
is  my  intention  to  lift  the  sheep-skin. 

Mr.  Caleb  Thomas — (Clerk  of  the  Deer  Creek  Con- 
ference), claims  the  "Minutes." 

J.  M.  PYooD. — Oh  !  if  you  are  ashamed  of  your  ''Dis- 
cipline," take  it  away.  I  want  the  congregation  to  dis- 
tinctly notice,  that  I  borrowed  this  book  for  . 

The  Moderators. — We  wish  the  speaker  to  under- 
stand that  this  matter  is  under  considei-ation. 

J.  M.  Flood. — I  borrowed  this  book,  and  that  man 
comes,  and  because  his  "  Discipline "  is  about  to  be 


He  quoted  the  apostle,  where 


•  exposed,  takes  it  forcibly  from  me. 


322 


DISCUSSION  ON 


Mk.  Caleb  Thomas. — I  wish  to  explain  that  Mr.  Flood 
called  on  me,  saying  J)  e  understood  I  had  the  Records  of 
our  annual  Conference ;  he  said  he  wanted  to  examine 
them.  I  told  him  he  could  have  them,  not  thinking  in 
the  least,  that  he  would  bring  it  up  here  for  public 
examination.  No  doubt,  they  have  examined  as  many 
men's  characters,  as  we  have.  This  is  the  reason  I 
object  to  this  book  being  read. 

J.  M.  Flood. — You  see  their  Discipline  is  in  a  cor- 
ner ;  ours  is  open  for  the  world.  I  have  not  said  a  word 
about  a  man's  character. 

Mk.  Summerbell. — Yes,  you  have. 

MoDEEATOKs. — The  decision  of  the  Moderators  is,  that 
the  speaker  has  a  right  to  the  Records,  and  to  all  histori- 
cal facts  connected  with  the  subject  under  discussion, 
but  not  so  as  to  reflect  upon  the  character  of  any  person. 
The  names  of  all  individuals  must  be  left  blank. 

Mr.  Flood. — I  will  not  be  hampered. 

Stranger. — Call  it  Mr.  A.  or  Mr.  B, 

Moderators. — Our  decision  is,  that  the  names  of  per- 
sons whose  character  is  involved,  shall  be  left  blank. 

Mr.  Flood  reads:  "Resolved,  that  each  Church  has 
the  right  and  power  to  settle  all  ditSculties. 

''''Resolved^  That  a  committee  of  three  be  appointed  to 
wait  on  A.  and  B.,  in  order  to  effect  an  adjustment  of  the 
difficulties  existing  between  them,  and  see  the  measures 
of  our  last  session  of  Conference,  that  they  be  carried  out 
by  those  who  engaged  to  comply  with  the  report  of  the 
committee  of  that  Conference,  and  that  A.,  B.  and  C, 
compose  said  committee.  Here  is  a  declaration  as  to 
the  power  which  each  Church  has,  according  to  their 
'  Discipline.*  I  want  chapter  and  verse,  to  prove  that 
their  Church  has  a  right  to  settle  difficulties,  by  a  com- 
mittee or  assembly  of  the  Church.  If  he  cannot  give  it, 
he  has  a  Discipline  outside  their  professions. 

Met  in  annual  session  at  Williamsport,  Pickaway 
county,  0.,  Aug.  14,  A.  D.  1851,  at  10  o'clock  A.  M. 
Called  to  order  by  Clerk ;  prayer  by  . 


CONSTITUTIOXS  AND  DISCIPLINES. 


823 


"A  Committee  was  then  appointed  to  nominate  a  Pre- 
sident to  preside  over  oar  deliberations.  Committee  con- 
sisting of  A.,  B.  and  C.    We,  yom-  committee,  beg  leave 

to  report  the  name  of  . 

Resolved^  That  be  our  Chairman,  dm-ing  the 

present  session  of  this  Conference. 

"A  resolution  was  then  offered,  and  received,  that 
the  candidates  for  ordination  be  examined,  by  a  commit- 
tee appointed  bv  the  chair,  bearing  upon  their  sentiments 
of  doctrine  that  may  be  cardinal ;  and  the  chair  appointed 
A.,  B.  and  C,  said  committee. 

Resolved^  Tliat  the  request  of  for  a  letter,  be 

laid  over  until  the  next  annual  Conference." 

I  should  like  chapter  and  verse  for  all  this.  TV"e  have 
similar  Rules  and  Discipline,  but  ours  is  printed  and 
open  to  the  world ;  but  thev  profess  they  have  none  but 
the  Bible. 

I  will  read  from  the  Gosjyel  Herald^  the  organ  of  their 
Church.    It  bears  date  July  13. 

"Minufes  of  the  Korthem  lUinoi^  and  Wisconsin  CJiristian  Con- 
ference, held  at  Bonas  Prairie,  Boone  Co.,  Illinois. 
''According  to  previous  notice,  a  part  of  the  ministers, 
and  some  of  the  delegates,  met  on  Friday,  the  I6th  of 
June,  1854,  to  form  a  Pastoral  Association;  and  after 
much  discussion,  and  the  objects  of  the  society  fairly 
presented,  the  association  was  organized.  Saturday  and 
Sunday  were  devoted  to  religious  exercises — preaching 
and  social  worship.  Monday,  19th.  met  in  Annual  Ses- 
sion ;  J.  Walworth  was  elected  President,  and  J.  L. 
Towner,  Secretary.  Prayer  by  A.  L.  Conant.  Then  pro- 
ceeded to  the  appointment  of  committees.  Afterward, 
to  the  examination  of  chnrches. 

Resolved.  That  J.  L.  Towner  deliver  an  address  before 
the  next  Conference,  and  that  J.  Walworth  be  his  alter- 
nate. That  J.  L.  Towner,  and  S.  Parsons,  be  our  dele- 
gates to  the  Iowa  Christian  Conference,  and  that  Eli 
Linscolt,  and  David  Pice,  to  the  Xorthern  Indiana  and 
Southern  Michigan  Christian  Conferen^-^     ^'      '  ~ 


824 


DISCUSSION  ON 


Bradley,  J.  Walworth,  J.  L.  Towner,  and  S.  S.  Kimball 
be  our  delegates  to  the  United  States  Convention  in 
October  next.  That  collections  be  taken  np  in  the  several 
congregations  to  assist  the  delegates  in  paying  the  ex- 
pense of  the  journey  to  Cincinnati,  and  the  amount  for- 
warded to  the  clerk  as  soon  as  September  next. 

"The  next  general  Convention  of  the  Christian  denom- 
ination will  meet  in  the  Christian  Church  in  Cincinnati, 
Ohio,  on  the  first  Wednesday,  October  the  4th,  1854,  at 
10  o'clock,  A.  M." 

I  want  to  know  their  authority  for  all  this.  If  it  is  in 
the  Bible,  as  they  profess,  let  us  have  the  chapter  and 
verse.  If  the  brother  can  not  prove  his  authority  for  all  tliis, 
from  the  Bible,  I  want  him  to  have  the  honesty  to  say  so. 
I,  too,  hold  that  the  Bible  is  the  highest  law,  and  that  no 
Church  has  a  right  to  make  any  law  that  interferes  with 
the  law  of  God.  My  brother  has  wandered  ofi'  the  track 
he  was  on  before.  Call  no  man  master,"  said  he;  this 
is  the  language  of  Christ ;  there  is  no  absolute  superiority 
in  the  Church  ;  no  natural  right  for  any  one  to  lord  it  over 
God's  heritage.  One  is  your  master,  even  Christ,  and 
all  ye  are  brethren.  Making  Constitutions  and  Disci- 
plines, he  says,  causes  divisions,  and  is  therefore  anti- 
Christian  ;  but  what  is  it  makes  these  divisions?  Tliese 
Creeds  and  Constitutions  do,  says  he,  "and  no  one  else 
in  the  world  could  receive  ours."  He  says,  we  ought 
to  give  up  ours,  as  well  as  our  distinctive  name.  We 
prefer  to  be  called  by  the  name  by  which  we  are  com- 
monly designated.  We  might  be  called  "  Christians," 
but  has  not  almost  every  form  of  skepticism  been  propa- 
gated in  the  name  of  Christ  ?  My  brother  now  gets 
back  to  the  subject  of  the  human  and  divine  nature,  and 
says  this  doctrine  can  not  be  proved.  Has  the  Church 
of  Christ,  since  the  days  of  Christ,  a  right  to  make  Rules 
and  Discipline  for  her  government ;  therefore,  because 
she  has  not  the  right,  therefore  Jesus  Christ  is  not  both 
God  and  man ;  and  if  he  be,  it  should  not  be  made  a 
subject  of  legislation  in  the  Church  whether  it  should  be 
believed  or  not. 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES.  825 


He  refers  to  the  flxct,  that  for  the  origin  of  these  Creeds 
we  have  to  look  back  to  the  dark  ages,  back  to  Wesley 
and  others.  According  to  my  friend,  Wesley  should 
have  been  a  school-boy  to  him,  then  he  would  have 
learned  that  the  making  of  Creeds  and  Constitutions  was 
out  of  place. 

Mr.  Summerbell's  Twenty-second  address : 

Although  Mr.  Wesley  was  linked  in  with  the  Creed 
believers,  yet  he  very  much  disapproved  of  Creeds,  and 
under  other  circumstances,  no  doubt,  would  have  aban- 
doned them.  Allowances  are  to  be  made  for  circum- 
stances ;  but  when  the  evil  of  a  thing  is  plainly  seen,  it 
should  be  abandoned.  My  brother  has  not  yet  harmo- 
nized the  contradictions  in  his  Discipline,  which  says  that 
the  Word  of  God  is  the  07ily  rule  of  faith  and  conduct. 
Now  if  this  be  true,  then  his  Constitution  is  no  rule  at 
all.  My  brother  now  talks  of  taking  oft'  his  gloves  and 
coming  at  me  in  earnest.  I  am  sorry  that  he  is  so  very 
angry.  I  do  hope  that  he  will  try  to  be  gentle,  or  I  may 
get  frightened  ;  for  I  am  not  very  courageous ;  however, 
1  do  not  feel  alarmed  yet,  and  am  in  hopes  that  I  shall 
live  till  night.  But  he  threatens  tremendously,  and  it 
will  be  proof  of  indomitable  courage  in  me  if  I  do. 
Still  he  has  attempted  to  frighten  me  so  often  that  I  am 
becoming  used  to  it,  and  like  the  cry  of  "  wolf!  wolf!" 
I  cease  to  be  concerned  at  his  cry.  His  human  thunder 
lacks  the  lightning  which  makes  it  terrific,  and  it  has 
now  been  sounding  in  my  ears  so  many  days,  that  it 
has  ceased  to  be  alarming ;  still  he  had  better  beware, 
for  he  might  frighten  me,  and  that  would  be  very  bad. 
He  quotes  the  Mhmtes  of  the  Deer  Creek  Conference, 
as  though  that  book  were  our  Constitution,  Discipline, 
or  Creed ;  but  that  is  merely  the  records  of  that  body, 
showing  their  modus  operandi  in  executing  our  divine 
Constitution — the  record  of  the  deeds  of  that  Conference. 
And  though  I  rejected  all  that  book,  and  all  their  acts, 
yet  I  might  be  a  member  of  that  Christian  church  all 


S26 


DISCUSSION  ON 


my  life — for  their  acts  are  only  of  local  authoritv,  and  their 
doinirs  have  never  been  either  examined  or  sanctioned  by 
the  Church  at  lari^e.  No  such  bouk  is  any  test  of  fellow- 
ship with  us.  lie  says  that  he  acknowledges  nothing  iu 
his  Discipline,  only  as  it  agrees  with  God's  book.  If  so, 
why  not  accept  the  Bible  just  as  God  gives  it  to  us  ?  If 
nothing  is  right  but  the  Bible,  then  why  not  take  the 
Bible  ?  But  it  is  not  so.  There  is  much  there  that  tlie 
Bible  approves  not.  It  is  the  Constitution  of  their  Cliurch; 
take  it  away,  and  they  would  cease  to  be  a  Methodist 
Protestant  Church. 

He  can  not  see  why  I  should  quote  the  text  that  the 
Bible  ''is  profitable  for  .doctrine,  reproof,  instruction  in 
righteousness,  and  able  to  make  the  man  of  God  perfect — 
wise  unto  salvation,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
works."  But  ray  brother  is  not  wise,  and  can  not  see 
afar  off.  What  more  is  needed  than  to  have  a  book  of 
doctrine,  reproof  and  instruction,  able  to  make  us  per- 
fect— thoroughly  furnished  to  all  good  works,  unless  we 
desire  to  avoid  this  doctrine  and  reproof,  and  to  be  fur- 
nished to  bad  works  {  He  says,  that  the  Church  is  a  secu- 
lar assembly.  The  word  Church  is  an  English  modifica- 
tion of  Krpcaacoc,  which  signifies  the  Lord's,  as  t/te  Lord's 
house,  the  Lords  day,  or  the  Lord's  people,  and  has  no 
connection  with  ^xxtjr^nia.^  which  occurs  so  frequently  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  signifies  an  assembly,  secular 
or  otherwise.  He  has  not  yet  proved  the  right  of  his 
Church  to  make  a  difference  between  the  rights  of  white 
and  colored  people.  If  it  was  made  for  the  South,  is 
God's  law  diflerent  South  from  what  it  is  Xorth  \  Why 
then,  not  alter  it  for  the  Xorth  ?  But  if  he  objects  to  the 
Constitution,  why  does  he  not  leave  the  church  ?  He 
objects  to  my  noticing  infant  baptism  ;  but  every  thing  in 
his  Constitution  is  now  open  for  discussion.  He  attempts 
to  enliven  his  side  by  anecdotes  not  at  all  apropos.  The 
story  of  the  red  heifer  is  only  applicable  to  himself,  who 
thus  follows  up,  in  its  crooked  windings,  his  changeable 
Creed ;  and  not  at  all  to  us,  who  foUow  the  unchangeable 


C0NSTITUTI0J7S  AND  DISCIPLINES. 


32T 


law  of  God's  Word.  And  himself,  too,  is  the  Paddy, 
who  could  not  get  off  his  pony,  because  be  could  not 
stick  on:  for  he  is  thus  with  his  Creed — his  reason  for 
not  abandoning  it  is,  that  he  does  not  regard  it  as  obliga- 
tory. Bat  such  anecdotes  are  unworthy  of  this  place — 
they  have  been  told  and  laughed  over,  perhaps,  in  every 
rum-hole  in  the  country.  Had  he  given  us  one  passage 
of  Scripture  instead  of  these  stories,  so  unbecoming 
the  house  of  God,  it  might  have  done  his  cause  some 
service.  But  that  is  just  what  is  lacking.  There  are 
plenty  of  texts,  but  none  authorizing  Methodist  ministers 
to  make  Constitutions  for  the  government  of  God's  peo- 
ple. Hence  his  great  efibrt  is  on  stories ;  but  do  such 
anecdotes  prove  that  the  Church  has  a  right  to  legislate 
for  the  Church,  and  make  Constitutions  and  tests  of  faith  ? 
The  Word  of  God,  and  nothing  but  the  Word  of  God, 
can  ever  promote  a  true  Christian  Church ;  all  other  rules 
of  necessity  create  sectarian  churches. 

John  Locke^  the  great  Christian  philosopher,  says  of 
the  Bible, It  is  all  pure,  all  sincere  ;  nothing  too  much, 
nothing  wanting.  How  that  can  be  called  the  Church 
of  Christ,  which  is  established  upon  laws  which  are  not 
his,  and  which  excludes  such  persons  from  its  communion 
as  he  will  one  day  receive  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
/  understand  notP 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke  says,  '-The  sacred  writings,  and 
they  alone,  contain  what  is  necessary  for  faith  and  prac- 
tice ;  and  that  no  man,  number  of  men,  society,  church, 
council,  presbytery,  consistory,  or  conclave,  has  dominion 
over  any  man's  faith.  The  Word  of  God  aloj^e,  is  his 
rule." 

The  excellent  Robert  Hall  says,  that  the  "  Bible  as 
(is)  the  great  and  only  standard  of  Christian  faitii  and 
practice."  And  when  Wesleij^  truly  a  great  reformer, 
astonished  the  churches  by  the  assertion,  that  men  should 
live  holy  lives^  he  was  styled,  homo  unius  lihri^^^  "  a 
man  of  one  book ;"  for  he  and  his  young  companions 
united  upon  this  Book  of  heaven.    They  were,  one  and 


328 


DISCUSSION  ON 


all,  determined  to  be  "  Bihle  Christians?'^  Hence  the  re- 
proacliful  epithets  of  ^^BiUe  moths^^^  and  ''"'Bible  hlqots^'' 
were  applied  to  them  bj  their  enemies.  Ko  doubt  but 
the  peculiar  feature  of  Mr,  W€sle}js  piety  was  as  much 
owing  to  his  regard  for  the  teachings  of  this  great  Book, 
as  the  declensions  and  dissensions  among  his  followers 
are  owing  to  a  departure  from  it. 

At  the  present  time  nearl}^  all  the  Baptist  cliurches 
in  the  United  States,  with  many  of  other  denominations, 
have  cast  off  all  other  rules.  One  of  the  best  discourses 
against  human  Creeds,  is  that  published  by  Charles 
Beecher,  at  the  dedication  of  the  Second  Presbyterian 
church,  at  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,  Feb.  22,  1846,  on  the  text, 
"  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable  lor  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  in- 
struction in  righteousness,  tliat  the  man  of  God  may 
be  perfect — thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works." 
2  Tim.  iii,  16,  17.  The  learned  divine  therein  maintains, 
that,— 

First:  "The  Bible  is  a  Creed,  sufficient,  under  God's 
blessing,  to  regulate  the  belief,  experience,  and  practice, 
of  the  whole  Christian  world." 

Second:  The  substitution  of  any  other  Creed,  for  either 
of  these  purposes,  is  one  step  in  apostasy.  And  ably 
does  the  noble  writer  argue,  and  triumphantly  does  he 
sustain  his  bold  positions. 

The  noble  IIuss^  plead  for  the  Bible  alone  ;  WicUiff 
looked  lor  unadulterated  truth  to  no  other  book. 

John  Bunyan^  the  author  of  the  Pilgrim's  Progress, 
belonged  truly  to  a  Christian  Church.  The  Bible  was 
the  only  Creed  of  that  Church,  and  Christian  character 
the  only  test  of  fellowship.  Though  Bunyan  himself 
was  baptized,  yet  immersion  was  not  made  a  test,  by 
either  him  or  the  Church,  and  Christian  is  the  only  name 
assumed  by  this  great  religious  luminary. 

The  Bible — the  Bible !  has  ever  been  the  appeal  of 
the  persecuted.  When  Mr.  Carson  was  expelled  from 
his  church,  in  Ireland,  by  the  soldiers,  he  took  the  Holy 


CONSTITUTIOXS  AND  DISCIPLINES.  829 


Bible  in  Ms  arms^  saying,  let  all  who  follow  the  Bible 
come  with  me,  and  the  congregation  left  the  house.  In 
short,  the  most  able  and  praiseworthy  positions  ever  as- 
sumed by  the  ministers  of  Christ — Luther,  Chillingworth, 
Wesley,  or  others,  have  been  taken  upon  The  Bible, 
and  the  Bible  alone."  This  is  the  lever  which  moved 
the  hosts  of  the  Reformation.  "With  this  truth,  the  Re- 
former has  ever  found  himself  doubly  armed.  He  has 
found  the  Bible  to  be,  at  once,  both  "  sword  and  shield.'' 
And  the  only  fault  of  the  Christians^  if  fault  it  be,  is  in 
carrying  out  iii  practice^^  what  an  enlightened  Church 
has  ever  taught  in  theory. 

True,  many  say  that  we  are  wrong  in  this,  but  we 
crave  your  indulgent  consideration  of  the  establishment 
of  the  Church  by  our  great  Immanuel ;  consider  its  history 
Tinder  the  inspired  apostles;  consider  its  trials  in  the 
early  ages ;  consider  the  united  testimony  of  its  holy 
martyrs  ;  all  these  appeal  to  the  Bible — the  Bible  alone ! 
If  they  were  sincere,  then  we  are  approved  ;  if  they  were 
correct,  then  we  can  not  be  wrong ;  if  they  were  wrong, 
then  those  who  sustain  Creeds  may  be  right :  and  Creeds 
may  be  an  improvement  upon  the  system  of  our  blessed 
Saviour  and  his  apostles. 

The  word  of  God  commends  itself  to  us  as  an  only 
nile  of  faith  and  practice,  if  we  consider,  that  since  the 
world  began,  it  has  been  the  only  rule,  or  guide,  ever 
commended  to  our  religious  observance  by  divine  au- 
thority. Neither  the  Father,  Son,  or  Holy  Spirit ; 
neither  angel,  prophet,  or  apostle,  has  ever  either  pointed 
us  to  any  other,  or  failed  to  warn  us  against  all  others. 
God  ever  assures  us  that  he  requires  us  to  walk  by  no 
other  rules,  and  to  obey  no  other  laws,  than  those  of  his 
Word,  in  order  to  render  unto  him  acceptable  worship, 
and  secure  eternal  life. 

It  is  written,  '*  In  vain  do  ye  worship  me,  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.'' — Mark  vii,  7. 

Said  Jesus,     Ye  make  void  the  law  of  God  through 
your  traditions." — Mark  vii,  13. 
28 


830 


DISCUSSION  ON 


*'If  thou  wilt  enter  into  life,  keep  the  command- 
ments."— Luke  X,  19. 

"  They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets,  if  they  hear 
not  them,  neither  would  they  be  persuaded  though  one 
should  arise  from  the  dead." — Luke  xvi,  31. 

"  Search  the  Scriptures" — "  the  Scriptures  can  not  be 
broken." — I  hid. 

Said  the  wise  man.,  "Fear  God,  and  keep  his  command- 
ments, for  this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man." — Ec.  xii,  13. 

Said  the  sv^eet  singer  of  Israel:  "The  law  of  the 
Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul.  The  testimony  of 
the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise  the  simple.  The  statutes 
of  the  Lord  are  right,  rejoicing  the  heart.  The  com- 
mandment of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes. 
The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  clean,  enduring  for  ever.  The 
judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true,  and  righteous  all  to- 
gether."— Ps.  xix,  7-9. 

"  Wherewith  shall  a  young  man  cleanse  his  way?  by 
taking  heed  thereto,  according  to  thy  word." — Ps.  cxix,  9. 

"  Thou,  through  thy  commandments,  hast  made  me 
wiser  than  mine  enemies.  I  understand  more  than  the 
ancients,  because  I  keep  thy  precepts.  I  have  refrained 
my  feet  from  every  evil  way,  that  I  might  keep  thy  word. 
Through  thy  precepts  I  get  understanding ;  therefore  I 
hate  every  false  way." — Ps.  cxix,  98-101. 

"  By  thy  commandments  is  thy  servant  warned  ;  and 
in  keeping  them  there  is  great  reward."  God  said  to 
Abraham,  "  Ye  shall  lay  up  these  my  words  in  your 
heart,  and  in  your  soul;  and  ye  shall  teach  them  to 
yom'  children,  speaking  of  them  when  thou  sittest  in  thy 
house,  and  when  thou  walkest  by  the  way,  and  when 
thou  liest  down,  and  when  thou  risest  up." — Deut.  xi,  18. 

To  Isaiah,  "To  this  man  will  I  look,  even  to  him  that 
is  poor,  and  of  a  contrite  spirit,  and  trembleth  at  my 
word," — Isa.  xlvi,  2.  The  wise  man  says,  "Add  not 
unto  his  words  lest  he  reprove  thee,  and  thou  be  found 
a  liar."— Prov.  xxx,  6.  And  John  says,  "  If  any  man 
shall  add  unto  these  things,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the 
plagues  that  are  written  in  this  book.    If  any  man  shall 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES. 


831 


take  away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy, 
God  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of  life,  and 
out  of  the  holy  city,  and  Jr^^m  the  things  which  are  writ- 
ten in  this  book." — Kev.  xxii,  18,  19. 

The  inspired  apostles  say,  "  All  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness ; 
that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  fur- 
nished to  all  good  works." — 1  Tim.  ii,  16. 

"  Whoso,  looketh  into  the  perfect  law  of  liberty,  and 
continueth  therein,  he  being  not  a  forgetful  hearer,  but  a 
doer  of  the  work,  this  man  shall  be  blessed  in  his  deed." 
James  i,  25. 

And  the  prophet  says,  "  To  the  law^  and  to  the  testi- 
mony, if  they  speak  not'  according  to  this  Word,  it  is 
because  there  is  no  light  in  them." — Isaiah  viii,  20. 

The  promise  is,  "  As  many  as  walk  according  to  this 
rule,  peace  be  on  them." — Gal.  vi,  16. 

And  the  warning,  "Though  we,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven,  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you  than  that  we 
have  preached,  let  him  be  accursed." — Gal.  i,  8. 

In  short,  all  the  promises  of  the  Bible  are  predicated 
upon  our  obeying  the  Bible.  It  is,  "  Blessed  are  they 
that  do  his  commandments."  Such  are  the  blessings 
and  promises  connected  with  God's  Word.  Neither  is 
there  any  blessing  pronounced  or  promise  given,  for 
believing  in,  or  walking  by,  any  other  rule  whatever ;  but 
we  are  ever  taught  that  this,  and  this  alone,  is  able  to 
make  us  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus. 

Again  the  Scriptures  commend  themselves  to  us,  as  an 
all-sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  when  we  reflect 
that  the  apostolic  Church,  and  indeed  the  primitive 
Church,  for  the  first  three  centuries,  had  no  other.  Had 
any  other  been  necessary,  the  apostles  would  doubtless 
have  provided  it ;  yea,  the  prophetic  eye  of  Jesus,  that 
pierced  the  vista  of  future  ages,  and  saw  the  pathway  of 
his  Church  through  all  coming  years,  would  have  pro- 
vided a  Creed  ere  he  said,  it  is  finished. 


832 


DISCUSSIOX  ox 


"Who  does  not  long  for  the  i-eturn  of  those  times,  of 
creedless  purity  and  apostolic  faith,  when  the  astonished 
heatlien  exclaimed:  See  how  these  Christians  love  one 
another^ 

Mr.  Flood's  Twenty-second  reply : 

My  brother  comphiins  that  I  do  not  quote  Scripture. 
It  is  his  business  to  quote  Scripture,  and  prove  his  posi- 
tion. Of  all  the  speeches  I  ever  listened  to,  his  last  is  the 
most  peculiar !  I  refer  him  to  Job  xxxvi,  10.  lie  open- 
eth  their  ear  to  Discipline."  I  quote  one  passage  merely 
for  my  brother  to  give  attention  to,  before  I  proceed  to 
review  his  position.  What  he  has  proved,  to  show  that 
the  Church  has  no  right  to  make  Discipline,  you  will  dis- 
cover as  we  proceed.  He  sets  out  by  saving  that  he  has 
heard  the  cry  of  '*wolf,'-  "wolf!'-  He  does  not  say  he 
sees  the  animal,  but  I  propose  to  lift  the  sheepskin,  and 
then  he  will  have  a  sight. 

My  brother  quotes,  "  teaching  for  doctrine  the  com- 
mandments of  men."  "Who  has  taught  for  doctrine  the 
commandments  of  men  ?  Has  he  found  it  in  any  Disci- 
pline in  the  world  ?  We  are  talking  about  government, 
not  doctrine.  My  opponent  is  here  to  prove,  that  the 
Church  has  no  right  to  govern  herself.  And  then  he 
says,  we  teach  for  doctrine  the  commandments  of  men, 
because  we  make  Discipline. 

He  is  now  become  very  pious,  and  very  loving,  although 
in  his  first  speech  he  called  me  a  hypocrite,  and  said,  "  he 
will  be  up  here  trying  to  deceive  you."  Who  is  a 
deceiver,  but  tlie  man  who  intends  to  enforce  falsehood 
upon  the  ])eople  ?  Now,  my  brother  wants  to  be  very 
loving.  This  blow  of  hot  and  cold  breath,  by  a  minister 
of  Jesus  Clu'ist,  is  very  bad.  Who  is  it  that  has  betrayed 
bad  feeling  I  Who  is  it  that  has  made  personal  attacks  ? 
First  I  wiis  charged,  most  pointedly,  with  ignorance ;  1 
could  not  see  far  because  of  ignorance  and  blindness,  but 
now  my  opponent  wishes  ^o  be  very  loving.  If  I  am 
that  ignoramus,  and  if  I  am  that  man  disposed  to  deceive,, 
treat  me  accordingly,  as  would  an  honest  man. 


COXSTirUTIOXS  AXD  DISCIPLDsES. 


333 


He  iDsists  upon  taking  the  name  that  God  gives.  I 
learn  that  the  followers  of  Cnrist  were  first  called  Chris- 
tians at  Antioch  ;  but  the  Christians  had  an  organization 
before  they  met  at  Antioch  ;  they  were  called  Nazarenes. 
This  brother  is  very  anxious  that  I  should  not  threaten 
him,  and  scare  him ;  he  intimates  that  he  may  become 
alarmed.  He  says,  1  have  been  boasting ;  but  I  leave  it 
to  the  audience  to  decide,  who  has  indulged  in  the 
greatest  amount  of  braggadocia.  Then  he  kindly  advises 
me  not  to  desecrate  the  pulpit.  I  thought  an  anecdote 
was  appropriate  to  the  pulpit,  as  an  equivalent  for  his 
attack  in  calling  a  friend  a  hypocrite  ;  leaving  the  pulpit, 
as  lie  did,  under  such  strong  expressions  of  love,  and  then 
venting  such  expressions  of  spite. 

Referring  to  this  hool\  he  says  our  Connection  does  not 
receive  it.  He  quotes  Locke,  (?)  to  show  that  a  Church 
not  founded  upon  the  law  of  God,  can  not  stand.  He 
quotes  Clarke,  to  the  same  effect :  very  excellent  I  It  is 
the  very  position  assumed  by  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Discipline.  What  Church  in  Christendom,  does  not 
make  Jesus  and  his  Word  the  foundation  upon  which 
they  build  \ 

Beecher  is  quoted  on  faith,  experience,  and  practice. 
The  Bible  is  enough  for  faith,  that  is  true ;  it  is  sufficient 
of  itself  for  faith,  experience,  and  practice,  but  in  the 
organization  of  a  visible  Church,  it  is  utterly  impossible 
that  it  could  exist,  without  some  rules  of  order  drawn  up 
independently  of  the  plain  letter  of  the  Word  of  God.  I 
want  my  brother  to  understand,  that  wherever  a  Church 
of  tiieii-s  is  organized,  they  have  their  books  to  i-ecord  the 
names  of  membership  and  the  transactions  of  the  Church, 
and  have  a  clerk  to  do  that  work.  Do  not  be  goins  about 
the  country,  to  make  people  believe  that  Methodists  have 
left  the  Bible.  Our  Discipline  has  been  held  up  to  scorn 
in  this  place,  and  ridiculed  as  a  little  book  unworthy  of 
notice  ;  and  at  the  same  time,  they  are  afraid  to  let  their 
own  books  be  seen,  and  bear  them  off  after  they  have 
been  once  lent,  because  that  it  is  not  to  be  seen  what  was 


334 


mscrssiox  ox 


their  mode  of  transacting  business.  [Heads.]  "  Their 
Annual  Conference  met  at  'W'illiams  county,  Ohio.  Aug. 
15,  1851,  and  were  called  to  order  bv  the  election  of  a 
Clerk.''  I  want  to  know  what  chapter  and  verse  will 
give  authority  for  this. 

My  opponent  unchristianizes  others  when  they  make  a 
Discipline  ;  I  fear  it  is  not  in  him  to  have  the  honesty  to 
acknowledge  that  he  falls  into  the  same  snare.  (?)  My 
brother  wishes  me  to  preserve  my  temper.  Have  I 
called  him  ignorant  ?  Have  I  intimated  that  he  was  a 
deceiver  I  These  words  are  brother  SummerbelTs.  and 
not  mine.  O  I  consistency  is  a  jewel !  He  introduces 
the  idea  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  into  this 
argument,  and  goes  on  to  mention  the  Trinity,  for  he 
could  not  keep  it  out ;  he  goes  out  of  his  way  and  drags 
in  the  Trinity,  and  speaks  of  the  Father,  Son.  and  Holy 
Ghost.  What  has  that  to  do  with  this  question  ?  He 
says,  we  should  receive  the  Word  of  God  as  true.  Who 
has  ever  questioned  this  ?  The  Word  of  God  is  able  to 
make  us  wise  unto  salvation  ;  but  what  has  this  to  do 
with  the  right  of  the  Church  to  make  Discipline  ?  He 
says,  Ye  make  void  the  law  of  God,  by  your  traditions." 
Whatever  makes  void  the  law  of  God,  is  not  Discipline. 
We  are  not  governed  by  traditions  ;  our  Book  of  Disci- 
pline is  open  to  the  public.  Every  Methodist  preacher 
is  a  peddler,  so  to  speak,  of  his  Discipline,  and  to  sell  it 
to  any  one  who  wants  it,  for  a  very  small  price  ;  and 
yet  he  urges  us,  whatever  we  do,  to  abandon  this  Disci- 
pline, and  come  to  the  Word  of  God,  as  though  we  had 
to  abandon  our  Discipline  to  come  to  the  Word  of  God. 

I  will  read  Mosheim,  Yol.  i,  37.  "I^either  Christ 
himself,  nor  his  holy  apostles,  have  commanded  anything 
clearly  or  expressly,  concerning  the  external  form  of  the 
Church,  or  the  precise  method  according  to  which  it 
should  be  governed.  Those  who  imagine  tliat  Christ 
himself,  or  the  apostles  by  his  direction  or  authority,  ap- 
pointed a  certain  fixed  form  of  Church  government,  have 
not  determined  what  that  form  was.    Hence,  we  may 


C0I7STITUTI0NS  AND  DISCIPLINES.  835 


infer,  that  the  regulation  of  this  was,  in  some  measure, 
to  be  accommodated  to  the  time,  and  left  to  the  wisdom 
and  prudence  of  the  chief  rulei*s,  both  of  the  state  and 
of  the  Church.  If,  however,  it  be  true,  that  the  apostles 
acted  by  divine  inspiration,  and  in  conformity  with  the 
commands  of  their  blessed  Master,  (and  this  no  Christian 
can  call  in  question)  it  follows,  that  the  form  of  govern- 
ment which  the  primitive  Church  borrowed  from  that  of 
Jerusalem,  the  first  Christian  assembly  established  by 
the  apostles  themselves,  must  be  esteemed  of  divine 
institution.  But  from  this,  it  would  be  wrong  to  con- 
clude that  such  a  form  is  immutable,  and  ought  to  be 
invariably  observed  ;  for  this,  a  great  variety  of  events 
may  render  impossible.  In  those  early  times,  every 
Christian  Church  consisted  of  the  people,  their  leaders 
and  the  ministers  or  deacons,  and  these  indeed  belong  to 
every  religious  society.  The  people  were,  undoubtedly, 
.the  first  in  authority ;  for  the  apostles  showed  by  their 
own  example,  that  nothing  of  moment  was  to  be  carried 
on,  or  determined,  without  the  consent  of  the  Assembly  ; 
and  such  a  method  of  proceeding  was  both  prudent  and 
necessary  in  those  critical  times.  It  was,  therefore,  the 
assembly  of  the  people  which  chose  rulers  and  teachers,  or 
received  them  by  a  free  and  authoritative  consent  when 
recommended  b}-  others.  The  same  people  rejected  or 
confirmed  by  their  sufirages,  the  laws  that  were  proposed 
by  their  rulers  to  the  Assembly  ;  excommunicated  profli- 
gate and  unworthy  members  of  the  Church  ;  restored  the 
penitent  to  their  foifeited  privileges ;  passed  judgment 
upon  the  different  subjects  of  controversy  and  dissension 
that  arose  in  their  community ;  examined  and  decided 
the  disputes  which  happened  between  the  elders  and 
deacons;  and  in  a  word,  exercised  all  that  authority 
which  belongs  to  such  as  are  invested  with  sovereign 
power.  The  people  had,  in  some  measure,  purchased 
these  privileges,  by  administering  to  the  support  of  their 
rulers,  ministers,  and  poor,  and  by  ofiering  large  and 
generous  contributions,  when  the  safety  or  interest  of  the 


336 


DISCUSSION  ON 


commnnity  rendered  them  necessary.  In  these  supplies, 
each  bore  a  part  proportioned  to  his  circumstances  ;  and 
the  various  gifts  which  were  then  brought  into  the  public 
assemblies,  were  called  oblations. 

Such  was  the  Constitution  of  the  Christian  Church  in 
its  infancy,  when  its  assemblies  were  neither  numerous 
nor  splendid.  Three  or  four  presbyters,  men  of  remark- 
able piety  and  wisdom,  ruled  these  small  congregations 
in  perfect  harmony,  nor  did  they  stand  in  need  of  any 
president  or  superior  to  maintain  concord  and  order, 
where  no  dissensions  weiie  known. 

It  is  in  strict  accordance  with  this  testimony,  that  the 
Discipline  of  the  Cliurch  was  not  settled  by  Jesus  or  his 
followers.  No  one  insists  that  necessarily,  all  the  Churches 
shall  have  the  same  rule;  but  then  there  is  no  propriety 
when  he  has  a  rule,  in  holding  up  the  Bible  and  saying, 
this  is  the  only  Discipline,  when  I  have  brought  from  a 
corner,  your  Discipline.  He  tries  to  refute  it  by  saying, 
that  all  Christians  do  not  receive  it.  Wlien  our  Disci- 
pline is  lield  np,  just  remind  them  of  tlv^it  other,  of  which 
they  are  so  ashamed.  If  you  have  a  Discipline  in  a 
corner,  bring  it  out,  my  brother,  and  don't  tell  the  people 
we  have  no  other.  I  will  again  refer  to  Mosheim,  Vol.  i, 
p.  39.  "But  the  number  of  presbyters  and  deacons  in- 
creasing with  that  of  the  Churches,  and  the  sacred  work 
of  tlie  ministry  growing  more  painful  and  weighty,  by  a 
number  of  additional  duties,  these  new  circumstances 
required  new  regulations.  It  was  then  judged  necessarj^, 
that  one  man  of  distinguished  gravity  and  wisdom, 
should  preside  in  the  council  of  presbyters,  in  order  to 
distribute  among  his  colleagues  their  several  tasks,  and 
to  be  a  center  of  union  to  the  whole  society." 

Our  friends  have  advanced  on  these  Christians.  I 
liave  not  opposed  the  right  of  Churches  to  elect  a  presi- 
dent, &c»;  but  in  subsequent  times,  the  Church  thought 
it  sliould  select  number  one,  and  call  him  President. 
My  brother  stands  here  as  our  accuser,  for  doing  the  very 
same  thing  they  do  themselves.    I  have  before  me,  the 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES.  337* 


proof  of  an  election  of  president  by  their  own  body.  See 
Minutes  of  Nineteenth  Annual  Session  of  the  Christian 
Conference.  Hei-e  is  a  man  elected  President;  I  want 
the  chapter  and  verse  for  it.  I  attended  the  first  Con- 
ference ever  held  in  this  part  of  the  country.  The  first 
question  proposed  was,  " Are  Conferences  Scriptural?" 
It  was  discussed  warmly,  interestingly,  for  some  length 
of  time,  but  all  thought  it  better  for  the  matter  to  be 
settled  among  themselves.  It  was  finally  decided  by  a 
majority,  that  it  was  a  Scriptural  proceeding ;  and  then 
were  elected  President,  Secretary,  and  Committees,  and 
all  thought  it  was  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures.  I 
do  not  say  that  the  proceedings  of  the  Christians  were 
unscriptural ;  but  I  do  say,  that  the  Scriptures  enjoin  us 
to  deal  witli  others  as  we  would  have  others  deal  with  us. 
Now  here  is  the  Church  ^Discipline,  election  of  president, 
&c.,  and  I  want  all  the  rules  and  regulations  of  their 
government,  and  I  want  chapter  and  verse  for  all  this. 
The  only  difference  between  our  Discipline  and  theirs  is, 
that  ours  is  printed,  theirs  is  not;  ours  is  printed,  theirs 
is  to  be  found  in  scraps,  scattered  all  over  the  land. 
Here  is  another  difference  between  us  ;  ours  is  a  common 
Discipline — they  call  theirs  the  Record  of  the  Proceedings 
of  Conference,  and  the  Record  of  the  Proceedings  of  the 
Church  ;  but  if  it  is  not  Discipline,  I  should  like  to 
know  what  it  is  ?  My  brother  laughs.  I  thank  you  for 
your  compliments — you  are  rich  in  all  that  sort  of  thing. 
I  have  met  a  mighty  man  to-day  ;  but  he  does  not  exactly 
square  himself  on  the  subject — for  he  does  not  come  up 
to  it.    In  the  fourth  Article  of  the  Minutes  of  Conference 

referred  to,  it  is  "  Resolved,  that  •  deliver  an  address 

before  the  next  Conference."  I  want  the  direct  chapter 
and  verse  for  this ;  for  does  it  not  regulate  the  action  of 
their  Church  ?  direct  the  actions  of  their  ministers  ?  It 

also  directs,  "  that  and  be  delegates  to  such 

and  such  places,"  &c.    They  speak  of  their  meeting  as 
Christian  Conference — why  not  give  the  name  that  God 
has  given  ?    I  would  like  all  these  things  found  in  the 
29 


338 


DISCUSSION  ON 


Bible ;  yet  my  brother  says  that  his  Discipline  is  in  the 
Bible.  You  see  they  liave  an  Annual  Conference,  a 
United  States  Convention  ;  now  if  United  States  Con- 
vention "  occurs  in  the  Bible,  I  would  like  to  find  it! 

Mr.  SuM^fERBELL's  Twcuty-third  address : 

Kind  friends — My  brother's  attempt  thus  far,  to  prove 
that  the  Church  has  a  right  to  make  Constitutions  and 
Disciplines,  is  an  entire  failure.  He  relies  on  one  text 
of  Scripture;  one  quotation  from  liuman  authority,  and 
an  appeal  to  the  Minutes  of  a  Conference;  all  of  which, 
we  will  examine. 

Firsts  The  text.  Job  xxxvi,  10,  ''^He  opened  their 
ear  to  Disciplined  But  what  Discipline  ?  Why  did 
not  my  brother  quote  it  all  ?  This  is  the  difiiculty 
in  all  these  human  systems  of  religion  ;  half  a  text  serves 
much  better  than  tlie  whole.  1  will  read  on  for  my 
brother,  and  see  if  it  gives  the  Ciiurch  a  right  to  make 
Disciplines,  "  end  commanded  that  they  return  from 
iniquity.  If  they  obey  and  serve  HIM,  they  shall  spend 
their  days  in  prosperity,  and  their  years  in  pleasure :  but 
if  they  obey  not,  they  shall  perish,"  &c.  It  seems  to  me, 
that  this  requires  us  to  leave  the  service  of  all  human 
S3"stems  of  righteousness,  and  commandments  of  men, 
and  serve  God,  as  it  is  written  :  "  Thou  shalt  worship  the 
Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve,"  and  gives 
us  no  authority  to  make  Constitutions.  So  that  my 
brother's  only  text  tails  him  in  his  extremity. 

Second^  He  quotes  Dr.  Mosheim.  But  Mosheim  says 
nothing  of  the  right  of  the  Church  to  make  Constitutions  ; 
not  a  word,  but  rather  the  contrary.  He  was  combating 
the  authority  of  the  bishops,  according  to  the  Episcopalian 
Constitution,  in  favor  of  the  liberty  of  the  Churches  to  be 
governed  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  shows  that  they 
had  no  human  Discipline,  but  followed  the  example  of 
the  Jerusalem  Church ;  so  that  this  quotation  is  on  our 
side,  and  against  our  brother,  and  thus  even  his  human 
authority  fails. 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES, 


339 


Thirds  My  brother,  faillnir  in  both  the  Bible  and  hu- 
man aiitiiority,  next  seeks  reiuge  in  our  Conference  book, 
and  endeavors  to  press  this  into  his  service.  Could  he 
have  found  in  it  a  Constitution  for  the  Churches,  or  any 
attempt  to  make  a  Constitution  or  Discipline,  why  then, 
he  would  have  the  authority  of  the  Deer  Creek  Confer- 
ence— that  '8  all  I  RiUher  poor  authority  to  justity  him 
in  legislating  for  God's  people.  My  brother,  you  have 
forgotten  that  the  question  is  not  whether  we  have  made 
a  Constitution,  or  whether  the  Deer  Creek  Conference 
gives  you  the  right ;  but  whether  God  has  given  this 
right.  But  even  here  his  failure  was  still  more  signal. 
Here  is  his  Constitution  and  Discipline.  According  to 
this,  a  Constitution  for  the  Church  must  embrace  both 
Creed  and  rules  of  government.  So  does  his.  Articles 
of  Religion  and  Discipline  are  included,  and  all  called 
a  Constitution.  But  our  Conference  book  is  nothing  of 
the  kind  ;  but  barely  a  record  of  the  proceedings  of  that 
body  of  our  people.  There  is  there  no  Constitution,  lor 
the  Bible  is  our  only  Constitution.  There  is  there  no 
Discipline,  for  the  Bible  is  our  only  Discipline.  And 
there  is  there  no  Creed,  for  the  Bible  is  our  only  Creed. 
And  I  now  demand  of  my  brother,  that  he  either  show  in 
that  book  a  Constitution,  Articles  of  Religion  and  Disci- 
pline, or  confess  that  he  has  misrepresented  us.  Xow, 
to  show  both  the  folly  and  uniairness  of  such  proceeding 
in  my  brother,  let  me  illustrate : 

First.  The  Methodist  Protestants  have  a  human  Dis- 
cipline ;  but  heside  this,  they  have  Conferences  and 
Conference  books.  They  meet,  and  pass  resolutions. 
Tiiey  record  the  Minutes  in  their  books.  But  they  do 
not  call  these  annual  records  new  Constitutions  and 
Disciplines,  unless  something  moi-e  than  the  Minutes  of 
their  body  be  found  there.  They  publish  papers,  and 
appoint  meetings ;  but  they  do  not  call  those  new  Disci- 
plines, as  he  calls  these  things  in  us. 

Seconds  A  Constitution  is  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
land,  nation,  or  body  of  people,  whose  Constitution  it  is  ; 


340 


DISCUSSION  ON 


but  the  Minutes  of  the  proceedings  of  a  body,  are  not  the 
fundamental  law  of  that  body ;  nor  yet,  the  discipline  of 
that  body,  much  less  the  Creed  ;  but  only  a  view  of  the 
executive  modus  operandi  of  the  action  of  the  Consti- 
tution. 

Thirds  Suppose  a  person  should  ask  you  for  tlie  Con- 
stitution of  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  you  should  take  up 
the  Records  or  Minutes  of  the  Legislature,  and  begin  to 

read  to  him,  that  Mr.  on  such  a  day,  offered  such 

and  sucli  resolutions,  and  say,  this  sir,  is  the  Constitu- 
tion of  Ohio;  would  you  not  think  that  he  was  trifling 
with  you  ?  And  yet,  this  is  precisely  the  method  of  my 
brother  ;  he  takes  a  Conference  Record,  and  calls  it  a 
Constitution.  Intelligent  people  will  see  that  this  proves 
the  ahsence  of  anything  more  to  the  point.  My  brother 
does  not  like  my  quoting  texts,  and  applying  them  to 
him.  You  all  know  that  these  were  not  applied  per- 
sonally, but  only  to  him,  as  the  representative  of  his 
Creed  system;  yet,  I  must  be  allowed  to  quote  them.  I 
cannot  refrain  from  quoting  the  Bible,  even  to  please 
my  bi'Other,  for  the  Bible  is  the  only  Constitution 
and  Discipline  of  the  Christian  Church  ;  and  no  one, 
preacher  or  layman,  has  the  right  to  make  any  other:  but 
according  to  my  brother,  every  thing  that  we  do  or  say^ 
is  a  new  Discipline.  He  complains  of  my  treatment  of 
liis  Cieed ;  but  why,  if  we  are  to  discuss  the  question  of 
Disciplines  ?  He  says  that  I  have  unchristianized  some  ; 
but  I  think  not,  have  I?  He  saj^s,  that  what  makes  void 
the  law,  is  not  Discipline ;  but  Article  seven  of  their 
Disci})line  makes  void  the  law  of  God,  in  the  rights  of 
colored  people!  He  says  that  they  have  advanced  on 
these  Christians ;  but  is  the  world  made  better  for  it  ? 
Then  they  were  united,  as  the  lieatlien  said :  how 
these  Christians  lore  each  otherP^  JS'ow  they  are  divided, 
and  the  intidel  says:  ''''See  how  they  hate  each  other I'''^ 
But  he  thinks  tliat  no  one  insists  that  the  Cluu'ches  should 
walk  by  the  same  rule ;  but  tlie  apostle  does. 

But  my  brother  demands  of  me  to  show  him,  chapter 
and  verse,  for  the  right  to  keep  a  record  of  the  names  of 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES. 


341 


members  of  the  Church.  I  refer  him  to  Acts  i,  15, 
"  The  number  of  names  together,  were  about  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty."  But  what  is  my  brother's  argument 
here  \  Only,  tliat  if  we  have  no  Scripture  authority,  (and 
he  says  that  we  have  this  autliority.)  why  then,  he  will 
insist  upon  it,  that  the  names  of  the  members  are  a  Con- 
stitution, Creed  and  Discipline.  Yery  well,  then  they 
have  more  than  one  Discipline.  As  to  the  name  Con- 
ference, see  Gal.  ii,  6. 

My  brother  still  urges  objections  to  the  Christian  name ; 
but  Clarke  says,  (and  Clarke  is  authority  with  my  bro- 
ther.) that  the  original  word  signifies  that  they  were  so 
called — Christians — by  divine  direction.  See  Acts  xi,  26. 

Aly  brother  says,  that  it  is  impossible  to  have  a  visible 
Church,  without  a  Constitution  ;  therefore,  on  his  own 
premises,  he  has  to  admit,  that  the  apostolic  Church  had 
a  Constitution,  or  he  must  deny  their  visibility.  The 
latter,  he  dare  not  do,  and  hence,  will  be  driven  to 
the  former ;  but  that  was  too  early  for  his.  What 
then,  was  their  Constitution  ?  Why,  the  same  as  ours. 
It  was  the  Bible.  (See  Mosheim,  Yol.  i,  p.  39,  of  which 
my  brother  quoted  a  part.)  They  ever  held  that  the 
Scriptures  were  able  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation,  and 
to  make  the  man  of  God  perfect ;  thoroughly  furnished 
unto  all  good  works. 

Now,  since  the  holy  Bible  was  the  Constitution  of  tlie 
apostolic  Church,  in  the  days  when  the  banner  of  the 
cross  was  borne  victoriously  from  Jerusalem,  to  the  re- 
motest nations,  o'er  oriental  sands,  and  northern  snows ; 
o'er  the  classic  fields  of  Greece,  and  amid  the  halls  of  the 
world's  capital,  everywhere  triumphant ;  when  sinners 
were  converted  by  thousands,  and  churches  planted  in 
every  clime ;  when  the  divisions  of  sectariansm  were 
unknown,  and  the  astonished  heathen  exclaimed  :  "  See 
how  these  Christians  love  one  another,"  why  should 
GocVs  holy  Word  not  be  the  Constitution  now  ? 

And  here  I  take  my  second  position,  that  the  Church 
now,  has  no  right  to  make  a  Constitution.    JMy  brother 


842 


DISCUSSION  ON 


admitted,  first,  that  the  Bible  is  the  highest  law  in  the 
Church  of  God,  and  that  any  thing  contrary  thereto,  is 
void.  This  is  the  nature  of  a  Constitution.  The  Bible 
then,  is  the  Constitution  of  the  Christian  Church,  even 
by  my  brother's  admission.  Webster  says,  that  a  Con- 
stitution is  the  fundamental  law ;  and  surely  my  bro- 
ther will  not  deny,  that  the  Bible  is  the  fundamental  law. 
So  that  by  his  own  admission,  and  the  authority  of 
Webster,  quoted  by  himself,  I  have  proved  that  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  is  the  Holy  Bible. 

And  now  the  only  question  is,  whether  Christ  has 
delegated  authority  to  others,  to  make  anotJicr  Consiitit- 
tion.  If  Clu'ist  has,  I  demand  that  he  show  us  the  text. 
If,  as  my  brother  contends,  Christ  has  left  the  Discipline 
of  the  Clmrch  an  open  question,  to  be  determined  by  time 
and  place,  60  should  we.  We  have  no  right  to  bind  for 
others,  what  he  has  left  free  for  us  all.  He  must  admit, 
that  we  have  a  right  to  practice^  what  he  has  a  right  to 
put  in  his  Discipline  ;  for  if  it  is  not  Scriptural,  he  has 
no  right  to  put  it  there,  and  if  it  is,  we  have  sufficient 
authority.  So,  if  electing  a  president  (Gr.,  Ejnscopiis^ 
Bishop),  is  Scriptural,  it  is  enough,  if  not,  putting  it  in 
the  Discipline  can  not  make  it  right.  Let  him  show, 
then,  that  something  we  practice  is  not  Scriptural ;  and 
be  sure,  that  he  does  not  condemn  himself  in  doing  it. 

To  make  a  Constitution  is  an  act  of  sovereign  power — 
above  ordinary  legislation  ;  but  Christ  is  our  King,  and  I 
assert  that  he  has  given  no  one  authority  to  legislate  for 
his  kingdom  on  earth,  but  has  taught  us  to  pray  that 
God's  will — that  is,  God's  Discipline.^  not  our  own  v:ill  or 
lav^s — that  God's  xi^ill  might  be  done  on  earth,  even  as  it 
is  done  in  heaven.  But  there  are  no  commandments  of 
men,  nor  human  Creeds  there.  The  early  Christians 
held  Conferences;  yet  they  made  no  Disciplines — no 
Creeds.  That  called  the  Apostles'  Creed,  was  never  seen 
by  the  apostles,  but  was  a  symbol  of  the  truths  they  had 
taught,  compiled  by  others  in  after  years.  If  a  Consti- 
tution beside  the  Bible  had  been  necessary,  Christ,  who 


CONSTITUTIONS  AXD  DISCIPLINES.  343 


knew  all  the  wants  of  his  Church,  through  all  coming 
time,  would  have  given  it  one ;  or  the  apostles,  whom 
he  left  behind,  would  have  compiled  one.  He  desires  to 
know  our  authority  for  holding  a  Convention  in  Cincin- 
nati, as  though  the  Bible  gave  no  such  authoritv,  but  the 
Discipline  did.  If  the  Bible  does  not,  they  have  no  right 
to  put  it  in  their  Discipline.  Did  my  brother's  Disci- 
pline command  him  to  hold  this  debate  ?  In  the  chapter 
and  verse  where  he  finds  the  one,  I  will  the  other. 

Jesus  says,  Ye  call  nie  Lord  and  Master,  and  ye  say 
well,  for  so  I  am."  Again,  he  says,  '*  Learn  of  me."  He 
was  a  teacher  sent  from  God.  We  are  his  disciples,  that 
is,  scholars ;  and  he  thus  sustains  the  relation  to  his  Church 
that  a  teacher  does  to  his  school.  IS"ow,  it  is  the  duty 
of  disciples  to  obey  the  master;  and  of  scholars  to  obey 
the  rules  of  the  school — but  not  to  legislate  for  it.  Who 
ever  heard  of  a  teacher  leaving  his  scholars  to  make 
their  own  Discipline?  My  brother  has  failed  in  every 
effort  to  produce  authority  to  make  Constitutions  and 
Disciplines,  as  I  have  demonstrated.  I  will  now  proceed 
with  my  argument  for  receiving  the  Bible  alone  as  a  Rule 
of  Faith  and  Government.    This  we  do: 

1.  Because,  it  contains  all  the  directions  that  God  has 
given  to  guide  us  from  earth  to  heaven. 

2.  Because,  by  general  consent,  all  who  humbly  form 
their  lives  by  its  rules  are  saved. 

3.  Because,  it  contains  the  New  Covenant  of  salvation, 
with  all  its  conditions. 

4.  Because,  it  contains  the  religious  instructions  giv^en 
by  all  the  inspired  teachers  God  iias  ever  sent. 

5.  Because,  it  contains  the  rules,  and  discipline  by 
which  millions  have  been  saved. 

6.  Because,  it  is  dictated  by  the  only  being  capable  of 
constructing  a  perfect  rule. 

7.  Because,  there  is  no  promised  blessing  for  obedience 
to  any  other  rule. 

8.  Because,  we  are  commanded  to  hear  those  who 
speak  in  it,  that  we  may  be  saved. 


344 


DISCUSSION  ON 


9.  Because,  it  tells  ns  just  what  character  shall  be 
saved,  aud  who  shall  be  lost. 

10.  Because,  it  tells  us  how  to  form  such  characters, 
and  where  to  look  for  aid. 

11.  Because,  it  tells  us  in  many  places,  loliai  to  do  to 
be  saved,  and  it  tells  Jiov^  to  do  it. 

12.  Because,  God  has  never  pointed  us  to  any  other 
rule. 

13.  Because,  salvation  is  promised  to  all  who  love  God 
and  men,  and  it  teaches  us  how  to  love  them. 

14.  Because,  salvation  is  promised  to  all  who  obey 
God's  commands,  which  are  contained  in  the  Bible. 

15.  Because,  its  instructions  are  called  a  Rule,  with 
the  promise  of  peace  and  mercy. — Gal.  vi,  10. 

16.  Because,  the  Saviours  words  are  there,  which  to 
obey  is  life  eternal. 

17.  Because,  the  knowledge  of  God  is  there,  whom  to 
Ttnoxc  is  life  eternal. 

18.  Because,  the  account  of  Jesus  is  there,  which  to 
believe  is  life  eternal. 

19.  Because,  it  contains  the  Scriptures^  loMch  are 
able  to  make  vs  wise  unto  salvation. 

20.  Because,  those  Scriptures  are  given,  that  we  rna.y 
he  thoroug?tly  furnished  unto  all  good  icorJcs. 

21.  Because,  they  are  given,  that  we  may  he  perfect; 
which  is  all  any  one  can  desire. 

22.  Because,  it  contains  the  Law  of  the  Lord  which  is 
perfect,  converting  the  soul. — Ps.  xiv,  7. 

23.  Because,  it  contains  the  testimony  of  the  Lord, 
which  is  sure,  making  wise  the  simple. 

24.  Because,  God  declares  that  He  has  done  all  for  us 
that  he  could :  but  if  other  rules  were  necessary  he  could 
have  made  them. 

25.  Because,  it  is  the  only  book  that  all  Christians 
agree  in,  or  can  ever  be  united  under. 

26.  Because,  whether  they  love  or  hate  each  other, 
agree  or  disagree,  they  all  acknowledge  its  authority. 

27.  Because,  eveiy  sin  is  a  violation  of  the  Bible,  and 
every  act  of  holiness  is  conformable  to  it. 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES.  345 


28.  Because,  no  one  considers  an  appeal  to  the  Bible 
in  justification  of  any  immorality,  as  either  candid  or 
honest. 

29.  Because,  adherence  to  it,  forms  a  universal  bro- 
therhood, united  in  the  bonds  of  heaven. 

30.  Because,  all  other  rules  being  the  landmarks  of 
sects,  are  necessarily  schismatical.  * 

31.  Because,  it  was  the  guide  of  all  the  saints  whose 
names  it  records,  who  are  now  in  heaven. 

32.  Because,  it  contains  sermons  by  the  Son  of  God, 
"which  he  said,  if  we  obeyed,  we  should  live. 

33.  Because  it  contains  rules  of  prayer,  by  which,  if 
we  are  guided,  answers  of  peace  and  mercy  are  promised. 

34.  Because,  those  who  are  not  satisfied  with  it  can 
not  agree  upon  any  other,  but  multiply  rales  indefinitely. 

35.  Because,  no  other  rule  has  a  source  that  wall  com- 
mand the  respect  of  mankind. 

36.  Because,  the  nearer  that  men  approach  to  heaven, 
the  better  they  understand  and  love  their  Bibles. 

37.  Because,  tlie  nearer  men  approach  to  heaven  the 
less  they  think  of  other  rules. 

38.  Because,  it  is  the  only  rule  for  which  we  can  claim 
the  promise:  it  shall  not  pass  away. 

3y.  Because,  it  is  the  only  rule  that  we  are  com- 
manded to  preach. 

40.  Because,  it  is  the  only  rule  that  we  are  com- 
manded to  search. 

41.  Because,  it  is  the  only  rule  that  we  are  com- 
manded to  keep. 

42.  Because,  it  is  the  only  rule  that  we  are  com- 
manded to  hold  fast. 

43.  Because,  it  contains  the  only  faith  that  we  are 
commanded  to  contend  for. 

44.  Because,  it  is  the  only  rule  which  all  acknowledge 
perfect. 

45.  Because,  it  is  the  rule  by  which  all  reformers  pro- 
fess to  be  guided. 

46.  Because,  it  is  the  only  rule  that  all  will  blush  to 
violate. 


346 


DISCUSSION  ON 


47.  Because,  it  is  tlie  only  rule  to  which  all  Christians 
appeal. 

48.  Because,  it  is  the  only  rule  that  has  the  sanction 
of  the  apostolic  Church. 

49.  Because,  it  is  the  only  rule  that  embraces  the 
whole  revelation  of  God. 

50.  i3ecause,  it  contains  all  of  God's  will  concerning 
us  ;  and  none  other  does. 

51.  Because,  it  is  the  only  rule  that  contains  the  whole 
of  the  Christian  religion. 

52.  Because,  there  are  some  men  in  all  denominations 
who  despise  human  Disciplines,  and  others  who  only 
receive  them  in  part,  as  my  brother. 

Mr.  Flood's  Twenty-third  reply: 

I  will  read  to  you  the  definition  of  Constitution,  as 
given  by  Webster:  "The  act  of  constituting,  enacting, 
establishing,  or  appointing.  The  state  of  being;  that 
form  of  being,  or  peculiar  structure  and  connection  of 
parts,  which  makes  or  characterizes  a  system  or  body. 
Hence,  the  particular  frame  or  temperament  of  the  hu- 
man body  is  called  its  Constitution.  The  frame,  or  tem- 
per of  mind,  affections,  or  passions  ;  the  established  form 
of  government  in  a  state,  kingdom,  or  country ;  a  sys- 
tem of  fundamental  rules,  principles,  and  ordinances  for 
the  government  of  a  state  or  nation.  A  particular  law, 
ordinance,  or  regulation,  made  by  the  authority  of  any 
superior,  civil,  or  ecclesiastical.  A  system  of  fundamen- 
tal principles  for  the  government  of  rational  and  social 
beings." 

I  will  now  read  Webster's  definition  of  "Discipline:'' 
"  To  instruct,  or  educate ;  to  inform  the  mind;  to  pre- 
pare by  instructing  in  correct  principles  and  habits ;  to 
instruct  and  govern ;  to  teach  rules  and  practice,  and 
accustom  to  order  and  subordination;  to  correct;  to 
chastise  ;  to  punish;  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Church 
on  offenders,  with  a  view  to  bring  them  to  repentance 
and  reformation  of  life ;  to  advance  and  prepare  by  in 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES. 


34T 


struction."  "\yith  these  references  I  shall  now  invite 
your  attention  to  Mosheim.  I  read  from  page  39,  "  Such 
was  tlie  Constitution  of  the  Cimrch  in  its  infancy,  when 
its  assemblies  were  neither  numerous  nor  splendid." 

"  I  now  state  that  not  one  single  passage,  quoted  by  my 
friend,  has  any  more  bearing  upon  this  subject,  than  it 
has  upon  the  condition  of  any  other  planet  than  this  one. 
lie  is  here  to  prove  that  the  Word  of  God  prohibits  the 
Churcli  from  making  a  Constitution  for  her  government. 
I  have  not  yet  met  with  that  prohibition.  Yet  he  stands 
up  here  and  insists  that  he  has  not  been  answered.  I 
assert  that  there  is  not  one  of  his  texts  that  has  the 
slightest  possible  bearing  upon  the  subject;  hence,  it  was 
a  waste  of  words,  and  his  attempt  to  prove  that  the  Bible 
proliibits  the  making  a  Constitution,  has  been  a  failure. 
He  says,  I  can  not  tell  the  difference  between  tweedledum 
and  tweedledee.  Thank  you,  brother,  for  your  high 
opinion. 

He  says,  the  Deer  Creek  Conference  which  I  quoted, 
is  not  very  good  authority.  Oh !  he  shakes  his  head  ; 
I  don't  know  but  he  might  shake  the  balance  of  his  hair 
off.  I  know  my  authority,  though  I  know  it  is  like  ex- 
tracting his  teeth  when  I  meet  him  upon  his  own  ground, 
— the  records  of  their  own  Conference.  He  tells  you  that 
this  is  only  the  record  of  the  proceedings  of  that  Confer- 
ence ;  but  this  Conference  pretends  to  act  under  the  Dis- 
cipline of  their  Church.  My  brother  refers  to  legislative 
bodies,  and  says,  that  the  records  of  their  proceedings 
are  not  the  statutes  of  their  Constitutions ;  but  that  one 
might  refer  to  the  Constitution  to  know  whether  any  par- 
ticular act  was  legal  or  not,  or  whether  it  was  according 
to  the  Constitution.  He  says,  that  their  Constitution  is  the 
Bible  ;  but  he  must  point  out  how  they  appoint  a  presi- 
dent or  a  secretary.  My  brother  says,  that  if  our  Dis- 
cipline differs  from  the  Bible,  it  annuls  the  Constitution. 
Kow  1  dety  him  to  point  out  a  single  article  in  oi)i)03ition 
to  the  Word  of  God.  He  says,  that  all  Church  trials  shall 
be  conducted  on  Gospel  principles  ;  and    that  all  offences 


348 


DISCUSSION  ON 


condemned  by  the  Word  of  God,  as  bein^  sufficient  to 
exclude  a  person  from  tlie  kingdom  of  grace  and  gloiy, 
shall  subject  ministers,  preachers,  and  members  to  expul- 
sion from  the  Church."  The  brother  can  not  find  a  sin- 
gle reference  to  the  Book  of  Discipline,  which  says  that 
any  one  can  be  expelled  for  violating  the  laws  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline. 

I  wish  to  invite  your  attention  on  the  word  "  Church." 
I  quote  first  from  Dr.  Buck : 

The  Greek  word,  ixxxr^ia,  denotes  an  assembly  met 
about  business,  whether  lawi'ul  or  unlawful." — Dr.  Buck 
on  Church. 

So  it  is  Dr.  Buck  against  Dr.  Summerbcll.  Dr. 
Watson  says : 

The  Greek  word,  ixxxr^oia^  so  rendered,  denotes  an 
assembly  met  about  business,  whether  spiritual  or  tem- 
poral.— Acts  xix,  52-59:"  Dr.  Watson  on  Church. 

So  it  is  Dr.  Watson  against  Dr.  Summerbell ;  yet, 
my  brother  sa^'s  it  is  not  so.  I  have  never  been  dubbed 
with  that  title,  and  I  have  no  disposition  for  the  honor. 

I  now  invite  your  attention  to  the  notice  in  the  ^^Gos- 
jpel  Herald^'  the  organ  of  the  Christians,  announcing 
that  "  the  next  Convention  of  the  Christian  Denomina- 
tion will  meet  in  Cincinnati,  and  that  so  and  so  is  Presi- 
dent," <fcc.  I  want  the  chapter  and  vei-se  for  this,  from 
his  Discipline,  or  Bible,  for  I  never  found  it  in  mine. 
He  quotes  from  the  Acts,  that  the  Church  numbered  a 
hundred  and  twenty,  and  therefore  assumes  that  it  is 
right  to  have  a  book  in  which  to  make  a  record.  If 
Dr.  Summerbell  is  right,  in  saying  that  we  have  no 
right  to  make  a  Constitution  and  Discipline,  then  lie  is 
wrong,  in  saying  that  they  have  a  right  to  keep  such  a 
book  as  the  Deer  Creek  Eecords,  and  a  clerk  to  make 
the  entries. 

Dr.  Clarke  says  that  the  name,  Ciiristian,  was  given  by 
Divine  authorit3\  I  never  questioned  that  it  was  so,  but 
I  asserted  that  the  Church  existed  before  it  was  so  named, 
and  that  it  received  different  names  previous  to  this. 


COTTFTTTUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES.  349 


My  brother  grows  exceedingly  eloquent  about  the  rise 
of  the  Church,  and  its  progress  over  the  classic  plains. 
But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  proposition,  tliat  the 
Church  has  no  right,  since  the  Apostolic  age,  to  make 
rules  for  her  governm-ent.  He  wishes  to  know,  if  when 
crossing  Jordan,  I  expect  to  take  my  Discipline  with 
me,  and  intimates  that  we  may  take  the  Bible  w^ith  us. 
It  is  something  like  the  preacher  who  said,  he  conld  tell 
the  secrets  of  the  three  heavens.  He  says,  the  Church 
has  no  right  to  make  Constitutions  and  Disciplines; 
yet  I  will  turn  to  the  page,  and  show  him  how  a  Presi- 
dent and  Secretary  have  to  be  elected.  I  call  your  atten- 
tion to  another  record  :  "  Resolved^  That  a  Committee 

of  three  be  appointed,  to  wait  on  Elders   ,  and 

effect  an  adjustment  of  the  differences  existing  between 
them."  Here,  you  see,  that  their  acts  are  to  be  regarded 
as  authoritative.  A  resolution  was  offered  and  received, 
that  the  candidates  for  the  ministry  should  be  examined 
as  to  their  qualifications."  Here,  you  see,  the  candidates 
are  to  be  examined  on  doctrinal  questions.  When  they 
present  themselves  for  ordination,  a  committee  is  ap- 
pointed to  examine  into  their  views  on  cardinal  points. 
I  want  chapter  and  verse,  as  authority  for  such  a  com- 
mittee to  examine  a  candidate.  Here  is  something  which 
draws  verv  near  to  a  Creed.  Who,  pray,  are  to  be  the 
judges  of  the  doctrinal  views,  if  the  right  of  private 
judgment  is  to  be  maintained,  as  my  brother  would  have 
it?  I  want  to  know  from  his  Discipline,  how  they  take 
this  privilege  !   Then  he  reads  the  words  of  our  Saviour, 

Search  the  Scriptures,  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have 
eternal  life,"  and  over  this  great  injunction  of  our  divine 
Master,  he  grows  very  eloquent.  He  says  that  Jesus 
does  not  say.  Search  the  Discipline.  Who  ever  claimed 
to  give  tliat  authority  to  the  Discipline,  which  we  claim 
for  the  Word  of  God  ?  It  is  a  provisional  means  on  the 
part  of  the  Church,  which  can  not  be  done  without,  and 
I  have  proved  from  this  book  of  the  Deer  Creek  Confer- 
ence, that  it  is  with  them. 


350 


DISCUSSION  ON 


Then  be  submits  sonic  twenty  propositions,  which  I 
shall  pass  over  ver\'  briefly,  for  not  a  single  one  of  them 
Las  the  slightest  tendency  to  come  within  gnnshot  of  the 
proposition  under  discussion,  which  relates  to  the  right  of 
the  Church  to.  make  Rules  and  Disciplines.  He  talks 
about  our  ''little  book*'  of  Discipline,  but  his  book  is 
very  much  larger  than  ours,  ^ow  I  will  take  the  big 
book  and  put  i^  on  my  siioulder ;  here  it  is,  and  I  set  one 
ofl' against  the  other.  When  my  brother  is  about  to  close 
his  address,  he  thinks  of  offering  up  a  prayer  that  God 
will  hasten  tlie  day  when  all  Disciplines  shall  be  destroyed, 
and  he  lifts  his  soul  in  pious  ejaculations  before  God, 
praying  that  it  may  be  so.  But  you  will  wear  out,  my 
brother,  before  your  prayers  will  be  answered,  for  it 
existed  in  the  Church  in  its  infancy,  and  my  friend  here, 
in  the  nineteenth  century,  is  unable  to  get  along  without 
it.  On  Sabbath  last,  when  my  brother  admitted  the 
young  man  as  a  member  of  his  Church,  he  put  the 
Bible  into  his  hand  and  said,  Do  you  receive  this  as 
your  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  V  and  on  his 
assenting,  he  was  received  into  the  fellowsliip  of  the 
Church.  This  is  all  right,  but  I  want  the  chapter  and 
verse  for  putting  the  Bible  into  his  hands.  I  think  I 
have  a  right  to  complain,  when  he  arraigns  othei*s  for 
doing  that  which  he  does  himself.  He  complains,  that 
we  subject  new  members  to  a  probationary  term  of  six 
months.  This  is  needful,  to  ascertain  if  the  sheepskin 
conceals  a  wolf;  if  it  does,  we  pass  them  over  to  those 
who  like  to  have  them. 

The  great  principles  of  Church  government  recognized 
by  the  Church  of  God  in  all  ages,  will  live  as  long  as 
the  Church  lasts — I  will  say,  as  long  as  time  lasts ;  for 
God  will  in  all  times  open  the  ears  of  his  true  Church  to 
Discipline,  and  train  them  in  all  that  appertains  to  the 
faithful  observance  of  the  internal  and  external  observa- 
tions of  their  religious  life.  Discipline  will  live,  sir, 
nevertheless,  when  he  prays  for  its  destruction,  let  him 
pray  in  faith ;  and  he  had  better  try  and  muster  all  his 
faith,  when  he  prays  upon  this  subject. 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES.  351 


Now  it  is  my  practice,  when  I  think  my  people  in 
error,  always  to  make  clean  the  inside  of  my  own  dwell- 
ing, that  the  people  with  w^iom  I  live,  may  stand 
reproved. 

Mb.  Summerbell's  Twenty-fourth  address : 

I  presume  that  the  intelligent  part  of  this  congrega- 
tion, will  easily  decide  whether  the  fact,  that  the  Deer 
Creek  Conference  keep  Minutes  of  their  annual  meetings, 
is  a  sufficient  warrant  for  the  Church  of  God  in  all  ages, 
to  make  Constitutions  and  Disciplines.  Webster  defines 
a  Constitution  to  be  a  system  of  fundamental  rules  or 
principles  of  government ;  but  is  not  the  Bible  a  funda- 
mental law?  which  then  is  the  Constitution?  But  this 
little  book  says  on  the  title-page,  ''Constitution  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church according  to  that,  it  is 
the  fundamental  law,  with  which  all  other  laws  must  be 
made  to  agree,  or  they  are  null  and  void ;  hence,  if  the 
Bible  conflicts  with  this  little  book,  the  Bible  itself  is,  so 
far,  null  and  void,  for  this  is  the  Constitution.  And  such 
is  the  case.  The  Bible  tells  us  that  we  are  all  brethren ; 
but  this  makes  it  null  and  void,  and  deprives  the  colored 
man  of  his  rights.  Tliis  human  Constitution,  substituted 
by  men,  instead  of  the  divine  Constitution  given  by  God, 
embraces  both  Discipline  and  Articles  of  Religion; 
hence,  is  a  law  both  of  faith  and  government.  What 
right  have  men  thus  to  legislate  for  Jesus  Christ  ?  Who 
gave  them  authority  to  dictate  Articles  of  Eeligion,  con- 
trary to  the  higher  teachings  of  the  Bible?  My  brother 
complains  of  my  exposing  the  little  book.  If  it  grieves 
him,  I  am  sorry :  yet,  if  he  is  ashamed  of  the  book,  I  am 
glad.  If  he  does  not  like  to  have  it  examined,  he  may 
have  it  and  take  it  away.  It  cost  me  eighteen  cents,  and 
he  may  have  it  for  half-price,  and  burn  it  if  he  chooses. 
These  human  Creeds  have  had  their  day,  and  their  influ- 
ence is  passing  away — and  so  it  should.  If  they  are 
enforced,  they  are  tyrannical^  and  cause  divisions ;  if 
they  are  not,  they  are  dece;ptiv6 — professing  that  the 


852 


DISCUSSION  ON 


Chnrcli  members  are  governed  by  the  Discipline,  when 
they  are  not.  On  Snn  lay  last,  he  rcqncsted  all  to  leave 
his  Church  who  did  not  believe  his  Discipline.  But  if 
they  do,  brotlier  Flood  nmst  leave,  for  he  publicly  acknow- 
ledged that  he  did  not  believe  it  at  all.  He  is  evidently 
ashamed  of  it.  for  he  will  not  allow  me  to  call  it  a 
Creed.  But  why  then  does  he  not  abandon  it  ?  He  wants 
our  authority  tor  appointing  a  Convention  in  Cincinnati. 
I  answer,  the  same  which  he  has  for  attending  this  debate. 
My  brother  stamps  the  pulpit,  but  he  will  have  to  stamp 
much  louder,  before  the  peo}>le  will  believe  all  that  he 
has  advanced.  He  asks,  if  tlieir  Constitution  expels  any 
one  for  simply  violating  the  Discipline?  In  ansvrer,  see 
page  44,  where  "Ministers  can  not  be  received,  unless 
they  approve  of  the  Constitution  and  Discipline,  and  are 
willing  to  obey  it;"  3^et  my  brother  only  approves  of  a 
part  of  it.  It  requires  candidates  for  the  ministry  to  read 
Clarke,  Fletcher,  Wesley,  and  others,  whose  names  fill 
two  pages  or  more.  No  matter  how  averse  to  the  doc- 
trine of  those  men,  or  how  well  road  in  the  Bible,  ho 
must  read,  and  of  course,  be  able  to  undergo  an  exami- 
nation in  these  authors  before  he  can  preach.  But  the 
Bible  makes  no  such  requirements.  Now  will  you  reject 
the  Constitution,  my  brother  ? 
Mr.  Flood. — No. 

Mr.  Summerbell. — He  promised  to  reject  it  if  it  was 
contrary  to  the  Word  of  God  ;  and  I  hope,  through 
divine  grace,  he  will  yet  see  the  folly  of  it,  and  give  it 
up.  He  says  that  Churchy  signifies  a  promiscuous  assem- 
bly, good  or  bad— a  secular  body — and  quotes  Buck  and 
Watson  to  prove  it — who  think  it  a  translation  of  £xx•,.r^aln, 
Do  you  believe,  on  this  human  authority,  that  the  Church 
is  a  mere  promiscuous  assembly  of  good  men  or  sinners, 
assembled  in  a  theater  or  anywhere  else  ?  My  brother 
does  not  believe  it.  No  one  believes  it.  The  word  Church, 
is  the  Greek  w^ord  xv^iaxb^  Anglicized — the  same  as  bap- 
tism, bishop,  &c.,  and  signifies,  the  Lord' 8.  in  the  posses- 
sive case ;  hence,  no  sinner  can  be  of  the  Gimrch  proper. 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES.  353 

It  is  not  a  translation  of  ixxxr-Aa  that  word  not  being 
translated  at  all.  King  James,  under  whom  the  transla- 
tion was  made,  gave  especial  orders  that  well-known 
ecclesiastical  terms  should  not  be  changed  or  translated  ; 
tlierefore.  Church,  the  same  in  a  varied  orthography  as 
Kiik.  from  xvptazo?,  was  substituted  lor  tx-x->.r(sia.  He  fre- 
quently calls  me  by  various  names  lor  a  little  pleasantry, 
but  I  have  no  reason  to  complain  ;  could  I  expect  that  he 
would  not  nickname  me,  when  he  nicknames  his  God  ? — 
calling  him  Trinity,  a  name  which  the  mouth  of  the  Lord 
has  never  named.  lie  who  will  take  such  liberties  with 
his  Go  1.  will  hardly  refrain  taking  them  with  an  oppo- 
nent. But  I  warn  my  friend,  that  this  does  not  prove  the 
riirht  of  the  Church  to  make  Constitutions  and  Disciplines 
for  the  government  of  Gol's  people.  He  brings  forward 
one  of  our  Conference  Minute  books,  but  with  ail  his  skill, 
lie  has  neither  found  in  it  a  human  Constitution  for  the 
Church,  nor  anything  approbating  one.  But  he  found 
something.  Yes!  He  found  that  on  the  application  of  a 
candidate  for  admission  to  the  ministry,  we  examined  the 
applicant  with  regard  to  his  qualifications;  and  so  he 
thinks  that  we  must  have  a  human  Constitution.  Xot  at 
all,  my  brother.  This  is  required  by  the  Divine  Constitu- 
tion. The  apostle  says,  "  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man, 
but  commit  these  things  to  faithful  men.  who  shall  be 
able  to  teach  others."  What  he  has  made  of  the  book, 
save  a  little  fun.  you  can  judge.  Xor  can  you  fail  to  see 
the  diflference  between  his  fuss  and  fun,  and  the  arguments 
which  I  have  produced,  proving  that  the  Church  has  no 
right  to  make  her  own  Constifution.  The  question  is, 
has  God  given  this  right?  not,  can  we  prove  it  by  infer- 
ence! or  from  the  Deer  Creek  Conference!  Has  my 
brother  quoted  one  solitary  text  to  show  that  this  right 
has  been  given  ?  I  have  never  witnessed  a  more  entire 
failure ;  yet  he  assumes  the  right  to  legislate  for  heaven, 
and  govern  all  God's  children — to  take  the  throne  of 
government  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  make 
Constitutions  for  his  followers.  His  claims  sm'pass  those 
30 


354 


DISCUSSION  ON 


of  the  Czar  of  Russia,  and  when  we  demand  the  docu- 
ments to  prove  his  authority,  he  goes  to  the  Deer  Creek 
Conference,  and — and  fails  to  find  them.  He  claims  a 
right  infinitely  higher  than  that  of  making  political  Cun- 
Btitutions  for  all  the  nations  under  heaven,  and  is  satisfied 
with  the  authority  of  a  rais representation  of  the  Minutes 
of  a  Conference  !  The  only  Constitution  of  the  primi- 
tive Church  was  the  Holy'Blble,  with  the  divine  religion 
of  Jesus  Christ  written  in  the  hearts  of  men,  as  proved 
by  my  brother's  own  quotation  from  Mosheim.  And 
such  should  be  the  only  Constitution  now,  and  must  be, 
before  the  peace  of  Zion  can  be  restored. 

I  will  now  be  forced  to  sum  up,  and  close  this  discus- 
sion, though  I  have  presented  but  a  small  part  of  the 
matter  I  had  prepared.  Forty-eight  logical  reasons  re- 
main unofiered;  yet,  enough  has  been  said,  and  suflicient 
authority  given  both  from  Scripture  and  reason,  to  prove 
that  the  Church  has  no  authority  to  dictate  her  own 
Constitution  and  Discipline. 

1st.  I  have  shown  that  my  brother's  Discipline  itself, 
declares,  that  the  Word  of  God  is  the  only  rule  of  faith 
and  practice.  Hence,  the  Church  has  no  right  to  make 
any  other. 

2d.  That  it  gives  the  Church  a  name,  "Methodist 
Protestant  Church,"  which  has  not  the  Divine  sanction. 

3d.  That  it  deprives  preachers  of  advancement,  unless 
they  approve  of  it. 

4th.  That  it  requires  more  of  its  preachers,  than  the 
Bible  does.    Page  134. 

5th.  That  it  deprives'  the  genuine  convert  of  full  fel- 
lowship, under  six  months. 

6th.  -Tiiat  it  prefers  the  children  of  their  own  members, 
to  religious  advantages,  before  others,  equally  good. 

Tth.  Tiiat  it  enjofns  rites  not  found  in  the  Word  of 
God. 

Sth.  That  it  says,  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  oply, 
contrary  to  the  apostle,  who  says  that  we  are  not  justified 
hy  faith  only. — James  ii.  24. 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES.  855 


9th.  I  have  sliown,  that  if  itjs  right  to  make  a  Con 
stitntioD,  then,  it  is  sin  to  resist  it  and  reject  it. 

10th.  That  this  right  to  make  it,  must  belong  to  the 
majority ;  but  my  brother  has  resisted  the  majority. 
Protestants  have  rejected  the  Roman  Catholic  riglit ;  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Chui'cli  has  resisted  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Ciiurch,  and  the  Protestant  Methodist  Church 
has  resisted  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  proving 
that  he,  in  his  own  case,  denies  this  authority  of  the 
Church  to  make  Constitutions  for  Ms  government. 

11th.  That  his  Constitution  is  a  fundamental  law, 
embracing  .both  Articles  of  Peligion  and  Discipline. 
Kow,  if  the  Church  has  a  right  to  make  these  Articles 
of  Religion^  then,  it  is  sin  to  resist  that  authority,  or  to 
reject  that  Creed,  which  will  turn  us  all  over  again  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church. 

12th.  I  have  shown,  by  very  many  texts,  that  the 
Bible  contains  all-sufficient  rules  for  Discipline  or  Con- 
stitution ;  and  that  it  is  in  vain,  to  worship  God,  teaching 
for  doctrines,  the  commandments  of  men. 

13th.  I  have  the  brothers  own  admission,  that  there 
can  be  no  other  fundamental  law,  except  the  Bible  ;  but 
a  Constitution  is  a  fundamental  law — hence,  it  is  wrong 
to  make  a  Constitution. 

14th.  1  have  proved  that  the  making  of  a  Constitution, 
is  a  sovereign  act,  requiring  sovereign  authority ;  but 
that  Christians  being  subjects,  and  not  sovereigns,  they 
can  possess  no  such  authority,  unless  it  has  been  dele- 
gated by  Christ ;  but  my  brother  has  found  no  one  text^ 
which  gives  such  authority  to  the  Church. 

15th.  I  have  proved  by  the  Bible,  that  God  requires 
not  of  us  to  legislate^  and  to  make  laws  ;  but  to  submit 
to,  and  to  obey  laws. 

16th.  Christ  being  King,  and  having,  as  I  have  proved, 
and  my  brothers  admission  confirms,  given  us  the  Bible 
as  our  Constitution,  it  is  rebellion  against  his  govern- 
ment, in  us,  to  make  a  Constitution,  and  attempt  to  legis- 
late for  Christ. 


856 


Discrssiox  ON 


ITth.  Acrain,  I  have  proved  that  man  not  only  lacljs 
the  authority,  but  the  ability  to  legislate  for  God's  people ; 
since  he  fully  understands  neither  the  mysteries  of  reli- 
gion, nor  the  nature  of  man.  To  fear  God  and  keep 
bis  commandments,  is  the  whole  duty  of  man  ;  but  God 
has  neither  required  of  us  to  make  laws  and  legislate  for 
his  kingdom,  nor  yet  to  obey  the  laws  which  others 
make.  I  challenge  my  brother  to  bring  forward  any 
authority  for  making  laws  to  govern  God's  Ciiurch. 

ISth.  It  is  said  that  Jesus  shall  i-eign  ;  but  how  shall 
be  reign,  if  others  make  the  laws  without  his  approba- 
tion ?  "We  pray  that  God's  kingdom  may  come,  and  that 
his  will  may  be  done  on  earth,  as  it  is  done  in  heaven ;  but 
have  they  these  little  human  Constitutions  to  form  Metho- 
dists. Presbyterians.  <fec..  of  the  inhabitants  of  heaven  ? 

19th.  Christ  is  our  King,  and  to  him  we  should  sub- 
mit, and  not  rebel  against  his  government,  and  make 
new  Constitutions,  and  divide  his  children,  bringing 
some  under  this  Constitution,  and  some  under  that,  thus 
rending  the  Church  of  Christ. 

20th^  Those  who  follow  such  Constitutions,  are  of 
necessity,  separated  from  those  who  do  not.  And  of 
those  who  thus  create  parties,  and  build  up  sects,  the 
apostle  says :  "J/a/'A*  them  which  cause  divisions,  and 
avoid  them."  Marie  tTiem  !  and  ''reject  the  heretic  after 
the  first  and  second  admonition."  Brethren,  wi^ile  we 
cherish  a  kindly  feeling  toward  those  in  error,  we  must 
bear  our  united  testimony  against  the  en'or  itself,  and 
put  these  things  from  amongst  us.  I  have  presented  only 
a  small  jxu-tion  of  the  arguments  which  I  have  prepared, 
against  Creed  and  Constitution  making  ;  but  these  are 
enough.  He  has  quoted  barely  a  single  passage  of 
Scripture  on  his  sicie,  while  I  have  cited  you  to  very 
many  condemning  the  practice,  and  proving  the  all-suf- 
ficiency of  the  Word  of  God.  He  answers  these  texts  by 
the  very  short  method  of  saying :  '*  ^VIly  they  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  subject:''  Of  course  not  I  What 
would  I  quote  them  for,  or  he  complain  of  them,  if  they 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES.  857 


had  ?  The  Minutes  of  tlie  Deer  Creek  Conference  (a 
body,  I  had  hardly  heard  of,)  is  the  only  authority  to 
him.  From  their  Minutes,  he  finds  abundant  authority 
to  make  Creeds  and  Constitutions  for  God's  Church. 
This,  however,  nmst  be  left  for  your  decision.  And  here 
I  close.  To  this  large  and  attentive  Congregation,  I 
return  my  sincere  thanks  for  the  patience  with  which 
you  have  listened  to  us  from  day  to  day.  If  we  have 
spoken  any  unchristian  word,  may  that  God,  whose 
mercy  we  have  heretofore  shared,  yet  forgive  and  pardon 
us.  To  the  gentlemen  Moderators,  and  our  kind  friends, 
the  reporters,  I  also  return  my  sincere  thanks  for  the 
faithful  performance  of  their  duties.  And  may  we  all 
meet,  when  we  have  passed  from  the  shores  of  time, 
where  human  Creeds  are  unnamed  and  unknown,  and 
God  in  Christ,  without  a  rival,  reigns.  Amen. 

Mr.  Flood's  Twenty-fourth  reply : 

Mr.  Summerbell  sets  out  by  inquiring,  are  there  two 
fundamental  laws.  He  assumes,  that  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Constitution  is  the  fundamental  law,  and  if 
this  be  so,  the  Bible  can  not  be  fundamental.  I  have 
quoted  from  our  fundamental  law,  if  he  so  calls  it,  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Discipline,  tliat  no  rule  was  author- 
ized to  be  passed,  contravening  the  law  of  God  in  any 
sense  ;  hence,  our  Constitution  and  Book  of  Discipline  are 
founded  upon  God's  Word.  The  business  of  my  brother 
here,  is  to  prove  that  it  is  not  so,  and  he  says  he  has  pre- 
sented a  hundred  and  fifty  proofs,  drawn  from  Scripture 
and  reason.  O,  how  logically  my  brother  has  reasoned! 
I  am  perfectly  willing  that  the  report  should  show  the 
strength  of  his  reasoning.  He  advises  you  that  a  very 
large  amount  of  testimony  is  still  reserved,  and  that  he 
has  not  emptied  his  barrel.  I  am  sorry  for  this,  since  he 
has  not  yet  presented  a  single  argument  nor  evidence 
from  God's  Word,  that  the  Church  is  prohibited,  since 
the  Apostolic  age,  from  making  a  Discipline  for  the  gov- 
oi-nment  of  the  Church. 


358 


DISCUSSION  ON 


He  alludes  to  the  Articles  of  Religion  and  Discipline 
in  the  book,  and  turninf^  round,  asks  if  I  am  not  ashamed 
of  them.  I  say,  no !  it  has  been  my  business  to  defend 
them.  He  then  refers  to  a  remark  1  made  on  the  Sablxith, 
that  I  invited  those  to  leave  the  Church,  who  did  not 
agree  with  our  Discipline.  I  have  no  idea,  that  those 
in  this  community  wlio  are  Methodist  Protestants,  will 
be  likely  to  become  anything  else.  My  brother  professes 
to  be  opposed  to  levity,  yet  once  he  laughed  himself,  when 
I  could  not  see  any  one  eke  laugh  with  him.  lie  asks 
where  we  get  authority  for  the  course  of  reading  laid 
down  as  essential  for  those  preparing  for  the  ministry. 
I  not  only  agree  with  this  requirement,  but  I  should  not 
object  to  increase  the  list,  and  perhaps  this  discussion,  if 
it  should  be  given  to  the  workl.  might  be  added  and  be 
found  serviceable  in  informing  those  who  come  hereafter, 
that  my  brother  has  a  Discipline — that  he  has  the  very 
thing  he  condenms  in  others.  I  ask  him,  where  he  finds 
authority  for  forming  a  Ministerial  association  ?  Has  he 
any  ?  No  !  Where  is  his  authority  lor  an  Annual  Con- 
vention ?  Nowhere.  lie  asks  me,  where  is  my  authority 
for  attending  this  debate.  I  am  commanded  to  teach  the 
truth,  and  therefore  I  am  here.  I  tliank  God,  it  is  my 
privilege  to  expose  heresy,  wherever  it  may  appear.  He 
directs  your  attention  to  the  word  Church,  and  says  my 
definition  is  not  admissible ;  but  I  am  perfectly  willing  to 
leave  it  to  such  authorities  as  Drs.  Watson  and  Buck, 
who  show  that  the  word  is  employed  to  signify  a  promis- 
cuous assembly,  but  that  by  connnon  consent  it  was 
applied  to  religious  assemblies  ;  that  it  applied  to  the 
Church  in  its  local  capacity ;  to  the  Church  universally  ; 
to  the  Cliurch  militant,  and  to  the  Church  in  its  triumph- 
ant state.  The  brother  complains  most  grievously  of  the 
term  Dr.,  being  applied  to  him.  It  has  been  wliispercd 
in  my  ear,  that  he  has  not  been  styled  Dr.  by  any  insti- 
tution of  learning  in  the  country,  but  as  he  arrayed 
himself  against  Dr.  Clarke,  and  read  from  his  own 
pamphlet,  I  recommend  him  to  the  favorable  notice  of 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES. 


359 


tlie  excellent  institution  in  this  neighborhood,  and  to  its 
worthy  head,  Mr.  Horace  Mann,  for  whom  I  have  tlio 
most  profound  respect.  He  refers  to  the  Conference 
book  ;  but  if  he  scoffs  at  his  own,  no  wonder  he  does  at 
mine.  Tliis  Conference  book  is  the  record  of  the  Chris- 
tian Association  of  the  Deer  Creek  district  for  many  years 
past ;  but  the  truth  is  out  at  last,  that  this  so  called 
Cin-istian  Churcli  has  Records  and  Discipline  that  can 
not  be  found,  in  what  they  recognize  as  their  only  Dis- 
cipline; that  they  have  officers  in  their  Church,  whose 
names  even  can  not  be  found  anywhere  in  the  Bible  ;  yet 
they  tell  you  this  is  their  only  book  of  Discipline,  and  I 
have  called  upon  my  brother  in  vain,  to  point  out 
chapter  and  verse. 

He  says  I  have  proved  nothing,  but  this  assertion 
arises  from  an  internal  consciousness  that  he  has  proved 
nothing.  Have  1  not  shown  you  that  the  word  Discipline 
occurs  in  the  Bible  ?  and  have  I  not  shown,  upon  the 
authority  of  God's  Word,  that  if  their  ears  are  to  be 
opened  to  Discipline,  if  it  is  not  found  in  the  Bible  in 
the  regular  form,  the  Church  has  to  make  it  ?  He  has 
forty-eight  reasons  which  he  has  not  presented,  but  why 
has  he  reserved  them  ?  I  suppose  he  contemplates  a 
paper-war  on  this  subject.  He  takes  great  pains  to  tell 
the  audience  I  have  made  an  utter  failure.  Bity  that  he 
can  not  make  me  sensible  of  it ;  it  is  the  discovery  of 
my  distinguished  opponent,  who  is  certainly  a  very 
remarkable  man.  He  passes  a  very  high  eulogy  upon 
the  Baptist  Church,  but  they  neither  agree  with  him  in 
discipline  nor  doctrine.  All  that  he  has  said  in  com- 
mendation of  that  Chi'istian  Church  I  can  indorse,  and 
were  it  necessary,  could  say  much  more,  for  I  have  known 
them  long  and  expect  to  love  them  to  tlie  end.  He  says, 
I  deny  the  authoi'ity  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church. 
I  never  said  any  such  thing,  neither  here  nor  anywhere 
else.  I  simply  said,  the  Ciiurch  has  a  right  to  make  this 
Constitution,  and  if  she  discovers  a  possibility  of  making 
improvements  therein,  there  is  no  passage  in  God's 


860 


DISCUSSION  OX 


TTord  prohibiting  her.  The  Wesleyan  Church  liad  a 
right  to  come  out  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  these 
are  matters  of  choice,  and  depend  upon  tlie  judgment  of 
those  concerned.  I  liave  shown,  that  no  specific  form  of 
government  is  laid  down  in  the  !New  Testament.  The 
Church,  with  her  eyes  open  to  this  fact,  has  a  right  to 
form  such  regulations  as  her  judgment  a])proves,  and  no 
one  has  a  right  to  stand  up  and  assert  that  in  so  doing 
we  overturn  the  Kingly  office  of  CJirist. 

My  brother  wants  to  know,  if  there  is  any  Discipline 
in  heaven.  I  answer  reverentially,  I  know  nothing  on 
that  subject.  Our  Discipline  relates  to  the  Church  in  its 
militant,  not  in  its  triumphant  state.  Heaven  is  a  place 
of  order,  and  the  Ciiurch  of  God  should  be  a  place  of 
order,  and  whenever  the  Church  is  denied  the  privilege 
of  making  Rules  and  Discipline,  it  can  not  be  a  Cluirch 
of  order.  1  have  shown  from  other  authorities,  that  they 
make  Rules;  that  each  individual  Church  has  a  Clerk, 
and  have  Books  of  Record,  in  which  to  record  their 
transactions  ;  but  there  is  no  specific  authority  for  th.is 
in  the  Bible,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  it  should  be 
done. 

I  throw  back  with  all  its  force,  the  statement  of  entire 
failure  ;  but  I  willingly  leave  it  to  the  intelligence  of  this 
audience.  1  invite  your  attention  to  the  opening  speech 
of  my  opponent,  and  whether  he  has  not  been  wandering 
from  the  point  ever  since. 

I  wish  you  to  notice  the  contrast  which  exists  between 
our  Constitution  and  Discipline  and  theirs.  Theirs  exists 
in  iragments — some  printed  and  some  written  in  a  per- 
fectly confused  manner — part  here,  in  this  paper  relating 
to  the  Cincinnati.  Convention.  'My  brother  seems  very 
uneasy  about  this  record,  for  it  shows  that  they  take  the 
liberty  of  examining  candidates  on  what  they  consider 
cardinal  points  of  doctrine.  I  shall  tliank  any  one  who 
will  tell  me  of  a  single  text  he  has  quoted  to  demonstrate 
Lis  position,  that  the  Church  has  no  right  to  make  a  Con- 
stitution and  Discipline  for  her  government  and  regula- 


CONSTITUTIONS  AND  DISCIPLINES. 


361 


tion  ;  at  the  same  time  I  am  desirous  that  he  should  show 
where  he  gets  his  Discipline  from  for  all  the  things  I 
have  pointed  out.  His  Discipline  is,  for  the  most  part, 
unwritten ;  it  exists,  but  it  is  in  the  minds  of  his  people, 
and  out  of  that  which  is  unwritten,  they  attempt  to  har- 
monize the  fact,  to  square  with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible. 
Our  Constitution  is  here  before  us ;  1  am  not  ashamed  of 
it,  but  am  willing  to  stand  up  and  defend  it.  But  my 
brother  has  displayed  a  great  fear  of  theirs ;  he  seems 
as  though  he  would  like  it  to  take  legs  and  run  away. 
Our  Constitution  is  founded  upon  the  law  of  God.  It  is 
required,  in  every  particular,  to  conform  thereto ;  and  if 
any  thing  in  word  or  spirit  should  not  accord  with  the 
Word  of  God,  it  is  nugatory — it  has  no  force  nor  power  ; 
for  no  law  is  allowed  to  be  so  construed  as  to  contravene 
the  law  of  God  in  any  sense.  Which,  then,  is  most 
deserving  of  respect,  the  Methodist  Protestant  Book  of 
Discipline,  or  the  imperfect  one  of  the  Christians,  or,  as 
they  are  more  generally  called.  New  Lights  ?  Ours  is 
honestly  and  openly  published  to  the  world ;  theirs  is 
hidden'^in  a  corner,  concealed  in  books  and  papers,  pub- 
lished by  their  own  denomination  ;  and  yet  unblushingly 
they  stand  up  and  say  we  are  opposed  to  all  books  of 
Discipline. 

Mr.  Summereell.  Amen. 

Mr.  Flood.  He  says  amen  ;  I  suppose  it  is  an  amen 
of  affirmation  of  tlie  argument.  Mr.  Summerbell  says, 
that  is  not  true.  I  thank  him  ;  he  is  very  polite.  When 
amen  is  used  it  is  in  a  sense  of  affirmation,  and  I  sup- 
posed he  used  it  thus.  I  have  made  it  appear  that  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church  claimed  the  Bible  as  the 
only  sufficient  rule  of  Faith  and  Discipline,  and  that 
ail  minor  Discipline  must  conform  to  that. 
31 


DISCUSSION 

ON 

HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


PROPOSITION  POE,  DISCUSSION. 

**  Mankind,  through  the  transgression  of  Adam,  (by  which  he  fell 
from  grace,  until  redemption  was  promised  by  Christ,)  are  by 
nature  entirely  depraved. 

Rev.  J.  M.  Flood  afl&rms  ;  N.  Summerbell  denies. 

Mr.  Flood's  First  address,  and  Twenty-iifth  speech : 

We  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  the  last  proposition 
submitted  for  investigation  at  this  time,  and  all  will 
readily  admit  the  great  importance  of  the  doctrine  in- 
volved :  man's  moral  depravity  in  his  fallen  state. 

First,  we  remark,  man  was  created  in  purity .  Gen. 
i,  27,  "  So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the 
image  of  God  created  he  him,  male  and  female  created 
he  them."  Eccles.  vii,  29,  "  Lo!  this  only  have  I  found, 
that  God  hath  made  man  upright,  but  they  have  sought 
out  many  inventions." 

Second,  Ilan  lias  fallen  into  sin  and  ruin.  Gen. 
iii,  17-19,  "And  unto  Adam  he  said,  because  thou 
hast  hearkened  unto  the  voice  of  thy  wife,  and  hast 
eaten  of  the  tree  of  which  I  commanded  thee,  saying, 
thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it;  cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy 
sake,  in  sorrow  shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy 
life;  thorns  also,  and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to 
thee,  and  thou  shalt  eat  the  herb  of  the  field,  in  the 
sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,  till  thou  return 
unto  the  ground,  for  out  of  it  was  thou  taken,  for  dust 
thou  art  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return." 
362 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


363 


Third :  We  remark  that  all  men^  in  tJieir  fallen  state, 
are  morally  depraved.  Gen.  vi,  11, The  earth  a] so  was 
corrupt  before  God,  and  the  earth  was  filled  with  vio- 
lence ;  and  God  looked  upon  the  earth,  and  behold  it 
was  corru])t,  for  all  flesh  had  corrupted  his  way  upon  the 
earth."  Job  xv,  16,  "How  much  more  abominable  and 
filthy  is  man  that  drinketh  iniquity  like  water Ps.  xiv, 
1-3,  ''The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God ; 
they  are  corrupt,  they  have  done  abominable  works,  there 
is  none  that  doeth  good  ;  the  Lord  looked  down  upon  the 
children  of  men,  to  see  if  there  were  any  that  did  seek 
God,  they  are  all  gone  aside,  they  are  altogether  become 
filthy,  there  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no  not  one;"  Rom. 
iii,  9,  20,  "  What  then  !  are  we  better  than  they  ?  Xo,  in 
nowise,  for  we  have  before  proved  both  Jews  "^and  Gen- 
tiles, that  they  are  all  under  sin,  as  it  is  written,  there  is 
none  righteous,  no  not  one,  there  is  none  that  under- 
standeth,  there  is  none  that  seeketh  after  God  ;  they  are 
all  gone  out  of  the  way,  they  are  altogether  become  un- 
profitable, there  is  none  that  d«eth  good,  no  not  one ; 
their  throat  is  an  open  sepulcher,  with  their  tongues  they 
have  used  deceit,  the  poison  of  asps  is  under  their  lips, 
their  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness,  their  feet 
are  swift  to  shed  blood,  destruction  and  misery  are  in 
their  ways,  and  the  way  of.  peace  have  they  not  known, 
there  is  no  feai*  of  God  before  their  eyes  ;  now  we  know 
that  what  things  soever  the  law  sayeth,  it  sayeth  to  them 
who  are  under  the  law,  that  every  mouth  may  be  stopped, 
and  all  the  world  may  become  guilty  before  God ;  there- 
fore, by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justi- 
fied in  his  sight."  Colossians  iii,  21,  "If  there  had  been 
a  law  given  which  could  have  given  life,  verily  righteous- 
ness should  have  been  by  the  law,  but  the  Scripture  hath 
concluded  all  under  sin,  that  the  promise  by  faith  of 
Jesus  Christ  might  be  given  unto  them  that  believe." 

Fourth :  Human  nature^  in  its  fallen  condition^  is 
entirely  depraved.  Gen.  vi,  5,  "And  God  saw  that  the 
wickedness  of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  that  every 


364 


DISCUSSION  ON 


imagination  of  the  thoiifrht  of  his  heart  was  only  evil, 
and  that  contin^alh^"  Ps.  v,  9,  "For  there  is  no  faith- 
fulness in  their  mouth,  their  inward  heart  is  very  wicked- 
ness, their  -throat  is  an  open  sepulcher.  they  flatter  with 
their  tongue."  Rom.  vii,  IS,  "For  I  know  that  in  me, 
that  is  in  my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing."    1  Cor.  ii, 

14,  "  For  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him,  nei- 
ther can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
cerned." 2  Cor.  V,  14,  "  If  one  died  for  all,  then  were 
all  dead."  Ephes.  ii,  13,  "And  you  hath  he  quickened 
•who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."  Eph.  ii,  3, 
"Among  whom  also  we  all  had  our  conversation  in  times 
past,  in  the  lusts  of  our  flesh,  fulfilling  the  desires  of  the 
flesh  and  mind,  and  were  by  nature  the  children  of 
wrath,  even  as  others  ;  that  at  that  time  ye  were  without 
Christ,  being  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel, 
and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise,  having  no 
hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world." 

Fifth :  We  shall  inwte  attention  to  the  several  ways 
in  which  this  depravity  of  human  nature  is  evinced.  1st. 
This  depravity  is  evinced  in  ojyposition  and  contradic- 
tion to  God.  Job  xxi,  14,  "  Depart  from  us,  for  we 
desire  not  the  knowledge  of  thy  ways."  Ps.  xxxvi,  1, 
"  The  transgression  of  the  wicked  saith  within  my  heart, 
there  is  no  fear  of  God  before  his  eyes."  John  vii,  7, 
"  The  world  can  not  hate  you,  but  me  it  hateth,  because 
I  testify  of  it  that  the  works  thereof  are  evil."  Rom.  i, 
30,  "  Haters  of  God."  Rom.  viii,  7,  "  Because  the  car- 
nal mind  is  enmity  against  God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to 
the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be." 

Sixth  :  This  depravity  is  mamifested.  in  disoledience 
and  insuhordinoAion  to  the  authority  of  God..   Job  xxi, 

15.  "  What  is  the  Almighty  that  we  should  serve  him  ?" 
Ps.  ii,  3,  "  Let  us  break  their  bands  asunder,  and  cast 
away  their  cords  from  us."  Jer.  v,  23,  "  This  people 
hath  a  revolting,  and  a  rebellious  heart,  they  are  revolted 
and  gone."    Zach.  vii,  11,  1'3,  "  But  they  refused  to 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


865 


hearken,  and  pulled  away  their  shoulder,  and  stopped 
their  cars  tliat  they  should  not  hear;  yea,  they  made 
their  hearts  as  an  adamant  stone,  lest  they  should  hear 
the  law,  and  the  words  which  the  Lord  hath  sent  in  his 
spirit  by  the  former  prophets."  Ps.  x,  4,  "The  wicked, 
through  the  pride  of  his  countenance,  will  not  seek  for 
God,  God  is  not  in  all  his  thoughts."  Is.  xxix,  15,  "  Woe 
unto  them  that  seek  deep  to  hide  their  counsel  from  the 
Lord,  and  their  works  are  in  the  dark,  and  they  say, 
who  seeth  us,  and  who  knoweth  us?"  Eph.  v,  li,  12, 
"The  unfruitful  works  of  darkness  but  rather  reprove 
them  ;  for  it  is  a  shame  even  to  speak  of  those  things 
which  are  done  of  them  in  secret."  Eph.  ii,  3,  "Among 
whom  also  we  all  had  our  conversation  in  times  past,  in 
the  lusts  of  our  flesh,  fulfilling  the  desires  of  the  flesh 
and  mind,  and  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even 
as  others." 

Titus  iii,  3,  "  For  we  ourselves  also  were  sometimes 
foolish,  disobedient,  deceived ;  serving  divers  lusts  and 
pleasures ;  living  in  malice  and  envy,  hateful  and  hating 
one  another." 

Seventh :  TJiis  depravity  is  also  sliown  in  acts  of 
hase  ingratitude  and  cruelty.  Psalms  xli,  9,  "  Yea, 
mine  own  familiar  friend  in  whom  I  trusted,  which  did 
eat  of  my  bread,  hath  lifted  up  his  heel  against  me." 
Psalms  Ixxiv,  20,  "Have  respect  unto  the  Covenant,  for 
the  dark  places  of  the  earth  are  full  of  the  habitations  of 
cruelty."  Isaiah  i,  2,  "  Hear,  O  heaven,  and  give  ear,  O 
earth,  for  the  Lord  hath  spoken :  I  have  nourished  and 
brought  up  children,  and  they  have  rebelled  against  me." 

We  remark  that  this  depravity  is  developed  in  deceit 
and  hypocrisy. 

Jeremiah  xvii,  9,  "  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all 
things,  and  desperately  wicked :  who  can  know  it  ?" 
Eomans  i,  29,  30,  "  Being  tilled  with  all  unrighteousness, 
fornication,  wickedness,  covetousness,  maliciousness,  full 
of  envy,  murder,  debate,  deceit,  malignity,  whisperers, 
backbiters." 


866 


DISCUSSION  ON 


Eighth :  We  now  invite  attention  to  tlie  consideration 
that  persons  are  responsible  for  actual  sins  only  ^  sins 
of  their  own^  not  of  others.  Deuteronomy  xxiv,  10, 
''The  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for  the  children, 
neither  shall  the  children  be  put  to  death  for  fathers  ; 
every  man  shall  be  put  to  death  for  his  own  sin." 
Ezekiel  xviii,  2,  "  "What  mean  ye  that  ye  use  this  proverb 
concerning  the  land  of  Israel,  saying  the  fathers  have 
eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on 
edge  V  Twentietli  verse,  "  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall 
die ;  the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father ; 
neither  shall  the  father  bear  iniquity  for  the  son.  The 
righteousness  of  the  righteous  shall  be  upon  hiui ;  and 
the  wickedness  of  the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him."  Jer. 
xxxi,  30,  "  Every  one  shall  die  for  his  own  iniquity ; 
every  man  that  eateth  the  sour  grape,  his  teeth  shall  be 
set  on  edge :  they  are  only  responsible  for  actual  sins  ;  yet 
this  inclination  to  evil  and  corruption,  is  early  mani- 
fested in  the  life."  Job  xi,  12,  "For  vain  man  would 
be  wise,  though  man  be  born  like  a  wild  ass  or  colt. 
Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  ?  Not 
one."  Job  xv,  14,  "  What  is  man  that  he  should  be 
clean  ?  and  he  that  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should 
be  righteous?"  Psalm  li,  5,  "Behold  I  was  shapen  in 
iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  Ps. 
Iviii,  3,  "The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the  womb ;  they 
go  astray  as  soon' as  they  be  born,  speaking  lies."  Pro- 
verbs xxii,  15,  "Foolishness  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  the 
child."  Isaiah  xlviii,  8,  "I  knew  that  thou  didst  deal 
very  treacherously,  and  w^ast  called  a  transgressor  from 
the  womb." 

We  now  invite  attention  to  some  consequences  which 
must  necessarily  result  from  the  doctrine  of  partial  de- 
pravity. 1.  If  any  part  of  man  is  not  in  his  fallen 
state  depraved,  that  part  stands  in  no  need  of  redemption 
by  Christ,  and  is  not  redeemed.  This  is  a  consequence 
necessarily  following  the  doctrine  of  partial  depravity. 

2.  If  that  part  of  man's  nature,  in  his  fallen  condition, 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


36T 


not  depraved,  obtains  heaven,  it  obtains  it  of  right,  and 
not  by  the  atonement  made  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
it  obtains  it  upon  the  ground  of  the  maintenance  of 
innocence  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  is  not  dependent  upon 
what  Christ  has  done  for  it.  I  shall  leave  ray  opponent 
to  point  out  what  special  part  of  human  nature,  in  its 
fallen  condition,  is  not  depraved,  what  part  does  not 
stand  in  need  of  the  redeeming  efficacy  of  Christ's 
blood. 

3.  There  is  another  circumstance  following  this  doc- 
trine, if  on  such  ground  it  enters  heaven,  whether  soul  or 
body,  or  part  of  both,  it  can  not  take  part  in  the  song  of 
those  who  have  washed  their  robes  in  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb;  there  would  be  a  discordant  song — the  whole 
man  could  not  unite  in  that  song.  K  the  soul  is  not  de- 
praved as  a  consequence  of  sin,  or  if  the  body  be  not 
depraved,  or  if  a  portion  of  either  be  not  depraved,  there 
can  be  no  praise  Ho  him,  who  has  not  washed  them  in 
his  blood.  This  we  regard  as  conclusively  disproving  the 
doctrine  of  partial  depravity.  There  are  other  Scriptural 
evidences,  bearing  upon  this  subject,  of  entire  depravity 
of  the  human  nature. 

Kow,  when  all  have  fully  before  them  the  subject  we 
are  discussing,  we  shall  read  the  definition  of  the  word 
depravity  from  Webster:  "Depravity,  a  vitiated  state 
of  the  heart,  corruption  of  moral  principles,  destitution 
of  moral  principles."  He  defines  depravity  to  be  a 
vitiated  state  of  tiie  heart,  corruption  of  moral  principles, 
destitution  of  holiness,  or  good  principles.  Here,  then, 
you  will  discover  the  ground  of  difl'erence  that  exists 
between  me  and  my  opponent,  in  the  investigation  of 
this  subject ;  we  consider  human  nature  in  its  fallen  state, 
to  be  depraved — entirely  so.  The  whole  race  of  man,  as 
a  consequence  of  original  transgression,  is  depraved  in 
all  its  parts ;  the  relation  of  infants,  however,  is  not  the 
relation  sustained  by  actual  transgressors,  though  they 
inherit  an  entirely  depraved  nature,  as  the  progeny  of 
an  entirely  depraved  parentage.    Yet,  infanta  are  passive 


368  DISCUSSION  ON 

in  the  fall,  and  are  passive  in  the  redemption  by  Christ; 
thej  can  not  possibly  be  the  subjects  oi  law ;  therefore, 
they  are  unconditionally  saved  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Romans  iv,  15,  AYhere  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no 
transgression."  Romans  v,  13,  "  For  until  the  law,  sin 
was  in  the  world ;  but  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is 
no  law."  Again;  "he  reckoned  all  under  sin,  that  he 
might  have  mercy  on  all."  In  this  state,  infancy  stands 
justified  by  an  act  of  God.  Tlie  infant  in  Jesus  Christ 
is  redeemed,  and  can  not  be  considered  as  guilty  before 
God.  It  was  from  this  fact  that  Jesus  Christ  made  an 
example  of  infant  children,  when  he  took  them  in  his 
arms  and  blessed  them ;  and  when  he  took  a  little  child 
and  placed  it  in  the  midst,  and  said,  Except  a  man  be 
converted,  and  become  as  a  little  child,  he  can  not  see 
the  kingdom  of  God." 

What,  then,  is  it  that  entirely  depraves  human  nature  ? 
It  is  sin — the  violation  of  God's  law.  'A  single  voluntary 
transgression  committed,  taints,  corrupts,  pollutes,  de- 
praves human  nature,  in  all  its  parts,  and,  of  course, 
covers  the  whole  ground,  and  entirely  depraves  all  his 
nature.  This  sin  is  represented,  in  some  passages  I 
have  quoted,  as  possessing  a  most  deadly  character;  the 
poison  of  asps  is  under  their  lips.  You  may  take  a  glass 
of  water — pure  sparkling  water — and  just  drop  a  single 
grain  of  arsenic  into  that  water,  and  what  part  is  not 
corrupt  and  depraved  ?  The  very  thing  is  poison.  By 
a  chemical  analysis  this  poisonous  substance  may  be 
extracted,  yet  there  is  no  evidence  but  that,  in  the  de- 
praved condition,  it  was  depraved  in  all  its  parts  ;  the 
poison  was  equally  diflused  in  every  particle  of  that  glass 
of  water.  If  sin  be  poison,  it  diiiuses  itself  through  the 
whole  man. 

Here,  then,  the  position  is  clearly  maintained : 
First,  That  human  nature  is  fallen  in  its  original  head : 
Second,  That  it  fell  from  grace  in  this  condition,  prior 
to  the  promise  made:  Gen.  iii,  15,  "And  I  will  put 
enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  betw^een  thy 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


869 


seed  RDd  her  seed  ;  it  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou 
shalt  bruise  his  heel." 

What  was  the  condition  of  man,  in  his  original  state  ? 
Was  it  a  state  of  condemnation  ?  Had  he  not  violated 
the  law  to  which  he  was  held  responsible  ?  Did  he  not 
rest  under  the  sentence  of  condemnation  ?  Did  he  not 
die  in  the  very  period  of  eating  thereof?  For  God  de- 
clared, "  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely 
die." 

This  death,  Adam  experienced  in  the  separation  of 
God  from  his  soul.  That  separation  took  place  immedi- 
ately on  his  transgression  ;  the  evidence  of  it,  we  have  in 
his  conduct  in  attempting  t<3  conceal  himself  in  the  trees 
of  the  garden.  He  felt  himself  to  be  a  guilty  rebel  in  the 
eight  of  heaven.  A  greater  evidence  of  deep  depravity, 
BVid  of  a  want  of  consciousness  of  grace,  or  favor,  than 
nis  desire  to  hide  from  the  Almighty,  could  not  be.  It 
s  well  known,  that  when  fear  exists,  there  is  no  disposi- 
non  to  avoid  the  presence  of  those  for  whom  friendship 
IS  entertained.  But  Adam  knew  he  had  violated  the  law 
of  God,  and  hence,  that  God  whom  he  had  recognized  as 
nis  God — a  God  of  infinite  love,  and  who  communed 
with  him,  had  now  become  to  him  an  object  of  terror, 
and  he  hides  himself  as  one  fleeing  from  the  hand  of  an 
enemy. 

He  was  lord  of  the  lower  creation,  and  sat  at  the  head  of 
God's  creatures,  and  was  in  rank  and  dignity  made  a  little 
lower  than  the  angels.  iSJ^ow,  the  crown  had  fallen  from 
•his  head,  the  glory  had  departed,  and  we  contemplate 
him  in  his  eclipsed  glory ;  the  sunlight  of  heaven  was 
withdrawn,  and  the  darkness  of  moral  night  had  fallen 
upon  him,  and  he  was  induced  to  flee  from  the  sight  of 
Jehovah.  For  it  is  a  natural  result,  invariably,  that 
wherein  appears  a  natural  likeness  to  another  object,  it  will 
seek  aflinity,  or  association  with  it,  and  shun  its  opposite ; 
and  it  is  particularly  so  in  a  moral  sense.  God  was  pre- 
viously the  source  of  his  delight — now  he  is  the  source  of 
his  dread  ;  formerly  the  source  of  his  enjoyment — now  the 


870 


DISCUSSION  ON 


source  of  his  anguish.  He  felt  it  was  against  God  he  had 
sinned,  and  must  have  realized  the  force  of  the  sentiment, 
''Against  thee,  and  thee  onh%  have  I  sinned."  In  this 
condition,  we  must  consider  him  as  fallen  from  grace, 
but  he  was  redeemed,  prospectively,  and  the  merit  of 
redemption  was  to  be  received,  on  the  condition  of  looking 
forward  to  its  fulfillment  by  faitli.  You  will  perceive,  that 
it  has  been  my  purpose  to  approach  the  subject  directly, 
and  no  one  will  presume  to  question,  that  I  have  taken 
the  position  upon  the  merits  of  the  subject  involved,  and 
have  presented  passages,  chapter,  and  verse,  calculated 
to  sustain  the  several  positions  assumed.  My  position  is 
sustained  by  the  most  leavne^l  and  respectable  authors  in 
Christendom,  that  the  consequence  of  the  fall  and  trans- 
gression of  man  is.  that  humanity,  in  its  fallen  condition, 
is  entirely  depraved  :  it  is  so  with  regard  to  all  persons, 
as  actual  transgressors  ;  it  is  applicable  to  every  individ- 
ual, where  a  sin  is  committed  against  God  intentionally. 

Mk  Summerbell's  First  reply  and  Twenty-fifth  speech  : 

I  am  very  much  pleased  with  my  brother's  speech,  the 
most  of  which  I  believe  as  firmly  as  he.  I  hope  that  he 
will  be  as  well  pleased  with  mine.  His  argument  on  the 
tumbler  of  water,  was  very  well  done.  The  water  was 
all  tainted ;  hut  its  natm^e  was  not  destroyed !  The 
poison  could  be  extracted  by  the  chemist,  and  the  water 
would  remain  in  its  original  nature.  The  mixture  of  one 
thing  with  another,  does  not  irrecoverably  destroy  the 
nature  of  the  thing  so  compounded.  As  far  as  sii^ 
goes,  it  pollutes  our  nature ;  no  farther.  He  says  that 
God  said  to  Adam,  "  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof 
thou  shalt  surely  die,"  and  that  Adam  lost  the  image  of 
God,  and  died  a  moral  death  that  day.  1  think  not.  If 
he  refers  to  the  marginal  reading,  he  will  find  it  ren- 
dered, '''dying  thou  shalt  die^^  as  it  is  in  the  original, 
Din  n  Di  n,  wadh  temutlt.  I  deny  that  humanity  became 
totally  depraved  in  its  nature,  and  lost  the  image  of  God 
there.  James  says,  iii,  9,  (and  James  is  good  authority,) 


HUMAX  DEPRAVITY. 


371 


"The  tongue  is  an  unruly  evil,  therewith  bless  we  God, 
even  the  Fatlier,  and  therewith  curse  we  men,  which 
are  made  after  the  similitude  of  GodP  Xow,  is  James, 
or  my  brother,  right  ?  He  thinks  that  one  transgression 
will  make  a  man  totally  depraved.  Then,  you  are  all 
totally  depraved,  here,  this  morning,  and  there  is  nothing 
good  about  you.  For  this  total  depravity  includes  the 
whole  nature.  No  matter  when  you  were  converted,  if 
you  have  committed  any  sin  since,  you  are  now  totally 
depraved,  and  can  do  no  good  thing,  for  like  begets  like. 
Such  is  my  brother's  argument,  that  the  commission  of 
a  sin,  however  small,  ren-ders  you  totally  depraved  in 
your  nature — as  depraved  as  Satan  !  It  is  getting  very 
late  in  the  day  to  make  people  believe  this.  He  speaks 
of  humanity  in  its  redeemed  condition ;  but  is  man,  in 
this  condition,  more  innocent  than  when  he  was  an  infant 
babe  ?  Jesus  says,  "  Except  a  man  be  converted,  and 
become  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  Yet,  my  brother  thinks  that  the  infant 
is  totally  depraved  in  its  nature. 

He  says,  that  he  believes  in  the  salvation  of  infants ; 
but  upon  what  ground,  if  he  deny  their  innocence  ?  There 
is  no  jpromise^  or  hope,  held  out  in  the  Bible,  which  is  not 
predicated  upon  their  innocence.  Jesus  says,  "  Sutler 
little  children  to  come  unto  me,yb/'  of  sucli  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  What !  totally  depraved  persons  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  ? 

I  am  asked  what  part  of  human  nature  is  not  totally 
depraved.  I  answer,  no  part  is !  Reason  still  exists  in 
man ;  love,  natural  affection,  and  desires  for  good  are 
there.  He  says,  if  there  is  any  part  of  our  nature  that  is 
not  totally  depraved,  then  we  cannot  experience  salva- 
tion in  Christ.  But  I  think  that  Christ  saves  us ;  if  he 
saves  us  from  whatever  dej^ravity  or  malady  we  have. 
If  Christ  heals  a  man  of  that  disease  which  he  has,  he 
saves  the  man.  It  is  not  necessary  that  every  person 
should  have  totally  perished,  in  order  to  experience  sal- 
vation. 


872 


DISCUSSIOX  ON 


He  thinks  that  man  is  total]*  depraved,  because  the 
wicked,  through  the  depravity  of  their  hearts,  will  not 
seek  after  God  ;  yet,  they  are  commanded  by  the  Word 
of  God,  to  seek  after  God.  And,  though  far  too  few 
do  seek  after  God,  yet  does  not  my  brother  preach  to 
them,  and  appeal  to  them,  as  though  he  thought  there 
was  something  left  not  totally  depraved,  either  in  the 
heart,  or  mind,  to  which  he  could  appeal  ?  If  my  bro- 
ther thought  that  there  was  nothing  good  in  humanity, 
no  good  soil  in  the  heart,  would  he  think  it  worth  while 
to  preach  to  sinners.  Could  the  seed  fall  into  good 
ground^^  if  there  were  no  '-^good  ground  V  If  there  be 
np  congenial  soil,  our  farmer  friends  know  very  well  that 
their  seed  will  not  grow ;  but  there  is  that  in  the  heart 
of  man,  which  responds  to  the  appeal  from  the  Word  of 
God — a  conscience  which,  though  depraved,  is  not  totally 
depraved ;  for  the  spirit  of  God  finds  a  response  there. 
My  brother  confounds  general  depravity,  in  which  we 
are  agreed,  with  total  depravity,  on  which  we  difier.  He 
quotes,  "  I  have  nourished,  and  brought  up  children,  and 
they  have  rebelled  against  me ;"  but  this  can  not  mean 
that  they  were  put  off  at  an  infinite  distance  from  God 
in  Adam.  No,  they  are  children,  who  have  gone  astray 
like  the  prodigal  son,  not  born  astray.  He  says  that  we 
are  only  responsible  for  our  own  sins,  and  quotes  Ezekiel 
to  prove  it ;  but  that  is  on  my  side  of  the  question,  so 
that  it  is  soon  answered. 

He  says  that  this  depravity  evinces  itself  in  a  hatred 
of  God.  Yery  true,  the  Scriptures  constantly  teach  that 
man  is  depraved.  He  quotes  Romans  viii,  7,  ''The  carnal 
mind  is  enmity  against  God."  This  is  true,  but  the  car- 
nal mind  here  is  not  what  he  makes  it ;  but  the  minding 
of  the  things  of  the  flesh.  He  says,  that  depravity  is 
evidenced  by  forgetfulness  of  God.  That  is  true;  but  it 
is  not  to  the  question.  We  both  hold  that  man  is  de- 
praved. He  quotes  Jeremiah  :  "  This  people  will  revolt 
more  and  more ;"  but  according  to  my  brother,  they  can 
not — they  can  not  become  more  and  more  depraved,  for 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


8T3 


they  were  totally  depraved  at  the  start  —  their  hearts 
were  all  made  totally  alien  from  God  at  the  beginning; 
hence,  they  can  not  revolt  more  and  more.  My  brother 
should  not  quote  such  texts  ;  they  are  not  on  his  side,  for 
they  are  true.  He  quotes  Ps.  xiv,  3,  "  There  is  none 
that  doeth  God,"  to  prove  that  all  mankind  are  totally 
depraved  by  nature  ;  but  this  is  spoken  of  the  wicked, 
and  not  of  the  righteous.    In  the  fourth  verse,  God  says: 

Have  all  the  workers  of  iniquity  no  knowledge,  who 
eat  up  my  people,  as  they  eat  bread,"  &c.  So  that  God's 
people  are  not  included  among  those  who  do  not  good. 
He  next  quotes  Eom.  vii,  18,  In  my  flesh  dwelleth  no 
good  thing."  That  is  the  reason  why  Paul  "  kept  Jiis 
hody  under.''''  Paul  was  a  converted  man,  but  the  flesh 
warred  against  the  spirit  ;  this  flesh  will  go  down  to  cor- 
ruption ;  but  by  and  by,  we  shall  have  a  spiritual  body, 
which  will  act  in  harmony  with  the  spirit.  The  flesh  is 
not  the  man  ;  but  the  spirit  is  the  man,  and  the  body, 
the  house  we  live  in.  My  brother  is  to  prove,  not  that 
we  are  depraved,  or  all  depraved ;  we  agree  on  that ;  but 
that  all  mankind  are,  by  nature.,  totally  depraved — that 
there  is  no  good  thing  in  us  at  all ;  being,  by  natural 
generation  as  had  as  loe  can  5^?, — that  as  the  enemy 
of  souls  is  only  totally  depraved,  as  he  is,  even  so  are  we. 

He  quotes  Gen.  iii,  17,  that  man  "  is  to  return  to  the 
dust ;"  but  this  does  not  prove  that  his  nature  is  totally 
depraved.  And  Job  xv,  16,  ''Man  drinketh  in  ini- 
quity ;"  but  this  does  not  prove  that  he  was  full,  totally 
depraved  at  birth,  for  then  he  would  hold  no  more. 
Col.  iii,  21,  "That  all  are  concluded  sin,"  shows 

that  God  did  not  consider  all  totally  depraved.  "To  fear 
God,"  because  we  have  sinned  against  him,  is  no  proof 
of  total  depravity  by  nature,  for  the  least  sinful  have  the 
deepest  sense  of  guilt,  often.  AFy  brother  does  not  con- 
sider the  question ;  but  reads  from  the  Scripture  Manual., 
in  the  order  there  laid  down,  without  reference  to  the 
appropriateness  of  the  application.  Is.  i,  2,  "I  have 
nourished,  and  brought  up  children,  and  they  have 


874  DISCUSSION  ON 

rebelled,"  proves  that  we  were  God's  children,  and  not 
totally  depraved  in  infancy.  Job  v,  15,  "  What  is  man, 
that  he  should  be  clean,"  might  be  applicable,  if  I  con- 
tended, that  all  men  are  holy.  Why  does  my  brother 
quote  these  texts?  Concerning  the  song  that  infants 
sing  in  heaven,  I  refer  my  brother  to  Kev.  xiv,  3,  And 
they  sang,  as  it  were,  a  new  song  before  the  throne,  and 
before  the  four  beasts,  and  the  elders :  and  no  man  could 
learn  that  song,  but  the  hundred  and  forty  and  four 
thousand,  which  were  redeemed  from  the  earth."  Ile^ 
would  have  infants  sing Unto  him,  that  hath  redeemed 
us  from  Adam's  sin." 

Again,  Job  xxxxii,  7,  "  Children  that  are  corrupters, 
they  have  forsaken  the  Lord,  they  are  gone  avmy  back- 
ward." Here  we  see  that  they  were  not  born  totally  de- 
praved ;  but  that  they  turned  away  voluntarily.  It  has 
ever  been  so.  I  will  read  Clarke  on  this  passage:  "They 
have  turned  their  backs  upon  him,  so  Kinchi  explains  it; 
they  have  turned  unto  him  the  back,  and  not  the  face. 
See  Jer.  ii,  27.  and  vii,  24.  I  have  been  forced  to  ren- 
der this  passage  paraphretically,  as  a  verbal  translation, 
they  are  estranged  hackward^  would  have  been  unintel- 
ligible."— Clarke  on  Job  xi,  7. 

So  far  from  considering  righteousness  contrary  to  our 
nature,  the  fathers  (see  Neander  ii,  561),  could  say: 
"  What  is  easier,  what  lighter  burden  is  there  than  this  ; 
to  take  delight  in  abstaining  from  sin,  in  willing  what 
is  good,  in  hating  none,"  etc.  Such  were  the  views  of 
Hilary,  "who  quotes  Fs.  Iviii,  5,  to  show  that  sin  can  not 
be  considered  as  anything  innate,  but  must  be  referred  to 
a  guilty  hardening  of  the  will."  P.  562.  "xSm  not 
innate.''^  That  is,  not  our  nature,  but  the  mortal  enemy 
of  our  nature.  My  brother  quotes  Rom.  iv,  15,  "Where 
there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression."  ^To  which  I 
answer  ;  then  there  is  no  sin  ;  for  "  sin  is  a  transgression 
of  the  law."  The  putting  enmity  between  the  woman  and 
the  serpent,  Gen.  iii,  5,  rather  proves  an  enmity  of 
evil,  and  hence,  an  absence  of  total  natural  depravity. 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


375 


He  quotes  Gen.  vi,  5,  "  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of 
man  was  great  on  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagination 
of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually,'' 
<S:c.  Kow,  nothing  is  here  said  of  the  nature  of  man, 
but  of  his  practice,  and  it  is  fully  explained  in  Ecclesiastes 
vii,  29,  God  made  man  upright,  but  they  have  sought 
out  many  inventions,''  and  this,  is  confirmed  by  Gen.  vi, 
12,  ^'AU  flesh  had  corrupted  its  vxiy  upon  the  earth," 
not  that  Adam  had  corrupted  the  nature  of  all  flesh  with 
total  depravity ;  but  the  charge  is  against  all ;  yet,  to  this 
all^  there  are  some  noble  exceptions,  and  during  the  fif- 
teen hundred  years  that  man  had  existed  on  the  earth, 
some  had  shone  as  lights  in  the  earth,  relieving  the 
darkness  of  the  universal  gloom.  There  was  a  righteous 
Abel.  Enoch  walked  with  God,  and  Xoah  was  a  right- 
eous man.  These  were  types  of  piety,  and  with  many 
others,  no  doubt,  children ;  yea,  sons  of  God,  amid  the 
general  alienation. 

Also,  it  is  to  be  considered,  that  had  the  great  moral 
evil  laid  in  our  nature,  the  remedy  would  have  been 
applied  there,  and  not  to  the  outward  boughs  of  the  tree  ; 
not  to  the  fiiiit.  In  consequence  of  the  great  wicked- 
ness of  man,  God  determined  to  destroy  the  world  by  a 
flood,  with  the  exception  of  one  family ;  but  this  could  in 
nowise  remove  the  difficulty,  if  the  evil  lay  in  the  nature, 
since  that  family  preserved  the  nature,  which  proves 
that  God  did  not  regard  the  evil  as  in  nature,  but  in 
practice. 

He  quotes  Job  xxii,  5,  "  Is  not  thy  wickedness  great, 
and  thine  iniquities  infinite  ? ''  this  is  not  the  language  of 
pious  Job,  but  of  Eiiphaz,  one  of  his  three  friends,  of 
whom  God  said,  '-they  have  not  spoken  the  thing  that  is 
right  concerning  me,  as  my  servant.  Job,  hath."  That 
sin  is  not  infinite,  is  proved,  for  where  "  sin  abounded^ 
grace  did  much  more  abound  ;"  but  nothing  can  exceed 
infinity.   Also,  in  this  text  nothing  is  said  of  our  nature. 

Isa.  i,  4,  5,  6,  speaks  of  the  great  wickedness  of  the 
Israelites ;  calls  them  a  sinful  nation,  a  people  laden 


376 


DISCUSSION  OS 


with  iniquity,  a  seed  of  evil-doers^  children  that  are  cor- 
rupters, who  h-dve  forsaJcen  the  Lord — gone  away  back- 
ward, and  says,  ''Why  should  you  be  stricken  any  more, 
ye  will  revolt  more  and  more :  the  whole  head  is  sick, 
and  the  whole  heart  faint ;  from  the  sole  of  the  foot,  even 
unto  the  head,  there  is  no  soundness  in  it,  but  wounds, 
and  bruises,  and  putrefying  sores ;  they  have  not  been 
closed,  neither  bound  up,"  &c.  This  is  not  speaking  of 
the  sins  of  individuals,  but  of  national  crimes ;  Clarke 
says,  There  are  some  who  explain  it  thus  :  '  upon  what 
limb  shall  you  be  smitten,  if  you  had  defection ;  for 
already,  for  your  sins,  have  you  been  smitten  upon  all  of 
them  ;  so  that  there  is  not  to  be  found  in  you  a  whole 
limb  on  which  you  can  be  smitten.' " — Clarke,  Isa.  i,  5,  6. 
Which  agrees  with  verse  7,  "  Your  country  is  desolate, 
your  cities  are  burned  with  fire;  your  land,  strangers 
devour  in  your  presence,  and  it  is  desolate,  as  overthrown 
by  strangers." 

Still  God,  in  speaking  of  that  very  nation,  see 
Jer.  ii,  21,  says,  "  Yet  I  had  planted  thee  a  noble 
vine,  wholly  a  right  seed,  how  then  art  thou  become 
the  degenerate  plant  of  a  strange  vine  unto  me."  The 
fault  was  not  in  their  nature,  but  in  their  practice ;  they 
were  evil-doers  who  had  forsaken  the  Lord,  and  gone 
away  backward.  The  loathsome  description  of  their 
wounds  and  bruises,  referred  to  their  calamities,  and  the 
head  sick  and  heart  faint,  represented  that  the  king,  the 
head  of,  and  the  priest,  the  heart  of  the  body  politic  and 
religious,  were  also  corrupt ;  and  in  this  explanation, 
Clarke,  my  brother's  own  authority,  agrees.  See  also 
verses  7  and  8. 

Jer.  xvii,  5,  "The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things, 
and  desperately  wicked."  This  says  nothing  of  our  na- 
ture, and  though  in  itself  too  true,  yet  is  not  a  correct 
translation.  Listead  of  desperately  wicked,  the  original 
signifies  loeah^feehlc,  wretched^  as  witnessed  by  Clarke. 

Clarke,  Jer.  xvii,  9,  "The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all 
things,  and  desperately  wicked ;  who  can  know  it  ? 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


87T 


Desperately  wicked,  ve  anmli  hu^  and  is  wretched 
or  feeble,  distressed  beyond  all  things,  in  consequence  of 
the  wickedness  that  is  in  it.  I  am  quite  of  Mr.  Park- 
hurst's  opinion,  that  this  word  is  badly  translated,  as 
anash  is  never  used  in  Scripture  to  denote  wickedness 
of  any  kind."  The  meaning  is  nearer  akin  to  the  words 
of  Christ  concerning  the  three  sleeping  disciples  in  the 
garden,  "  The  spirit  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak." 

Ps.  li,  5,  "Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in 
sin  did  my  mothejuconceive  me."  This  is  a  part  of  the 
language  of  deep  humility  in  the  confession  of  a  prayer, 
and  is  no  more  to  be  understood  literally,  than  the  words, 
"I  am  a  worm,  and  no  man." — Ps.  xxii,  6.  Shapen, 
in  the  above  text,  is  from  the  Hebrew  cholcdeti^  and 
signifies  hrought  forth^  while  yecliematen  signifies  made 
me  warm  ;  see  Clarke.  A  critical  examination  of  the 
passage  shows  it  to  have  been  an  humble  confession  that 
he  sprang  from  a  wicked  parentage  ;  but  says  not  one 
word  either  of  the  partial  or  total  depravity  of  nature. 
The  passage,  Ps.  Iviii,  3,  "  The  wicked  go  astray  as  soon 
as  they  are  born,  speaking  lies,"  proves  that  our  wick- 
edness lies  not  in  our  nature,  but  practice.  It  would  be 
hard  for  those  to  GO  ASTRAY  who  were  born  TO- 
TALLY DEPRAVED.  But  this  text  is  referred  to  by 
Hilary,  an  orthodox  father,  who  applies  it  to  "  a  guilty 
hardening  of  the  will :  but  never  recognises  man  as  hav- 
ing lost  the  divine  image."  "All  moral  evih  however, 
Hilary  seems  to  refer  to  the  sensuous  nature,  while  in 
the  soul,  he  recognizes  the  indestructible  image  of  God. 
Thus  the  contrariety  betwixt  the  inner  and  outer  man,  is 
to  him  no  other  than  that  betwixt  spirit  and  sense." 
Neander,  Vol.  ii,  pp.  559 — 562. 

Hilary  is  one  of  the  most  orthodox  fathers  of  the 
fourth  century,  and  his  views  were  the  views  of  the 
Church  at  that  period :  but  how  widely  difi'erent  from 
my  brother,  you  may  judge  by  the  following :  "  Those 
who  painfully  struggle  along,"  says  he,  "under  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  law,  and  those  who  are  burdened  with  the 
32 


378 


DISCUSSION  ON 


sins  of  the  world,  Christ  calls  to  himself,  and  he  promises 
to  make  the  way  easv  and  their  burden  light,  if  they  will 
but  take  his  yoke  uix>n  them,  that  is.  subject  themselves 
to  his  commands,  and  come  to  him  under  the  holy  sacra- 
ment of  the  cross,  because  he  is  meek  and  lowly  of  heart, 
and  they  shall  therein  (by  submitting  to  his  commands.) 
find  rest  to  their  souls,  holding  out  the  allurement  of  an 
easy  yoke  and  a  light  burden,  that  he  may  bestow  on 
those  who  lx?lieve  on  him,  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
good,  and  what  lighter  burden  is  there  than  this,  to  take 
delight  in  abstaining  fi'om  sin,  in  willing  what  is  good, 
in  loving  all  men,  in  hating  none,  in  attaining  to  things 
that  are  eternal,  in  not  being  carried  away  by  things 
present  and  temporal,  in  being  unwilling  to  do  to  others 
what  vou  would  not  choose  to  sufier  yourself." — Z!sean- 
der.  Yol.  ii,  561. 

Here  the  gospel  is  spoken  of  as  being  in  accordance 
with  our  nature,  and  that  which  we  need  to  make  us 
happy. 

Ps'.  xxii,  10,  David  declares  that  God  was  his  God 
from  the  very  beginning  of  his  existence,  which  could 
not  have  been  the  case  if  he  was  bom  totally  depraved. 

Before  farther  examining  texts  u|X>n  the  subject,  I  will 
now  present  you  with  some  philosophical,  and  some 
Biblical  arguments  against  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity. 

1st.  We  have  no  proof,  whatever,  that  Adam  fell  into 
a  state  of  total  depravity;  and  it  is  wrong  to  accuse 
him  of  it  without  pi*oof. 

2d.  There  is  neither  Scripture,  reason,  nor  philosophy, 
for  the  opinion  that  one  sin  will  cause  all  nature  to  be- 
come totally  depraved ;  just  as  well  might  we  say  that 
one  good  deed  would  regenerate  and  sanctity  our  natm'c-s 
through  all  succeeding  generations.  We  have  no  proof 
that  Adam  fell  from  the  grace  of  God.  God  was  his 
father  by  creation,  and  followed  him  with  his  love  even 
after  he  had  sinned ;  and  notwithstanding  Adam's  fear 
of  him.  yet  God  sy^oke  to  him  words  of  love,  and  prom- 
ised him  a  Saviour  to  redeem  him  and  aU  his  posterity ; 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


879 


SO  that  he  had  not  fallen  from  God's  grace.  I  know  tliat 
it  is  a  popular  doctrine ;  but  how  could  we  be  saved  if 
fallen  from  God's  grace  ?  Could  we  be  restored  to  grace 
without  grace  ?  It  is  a  mistake  that  the  image-  of 
God,  in  which  man  was  created,  was  the  moral  image. 
God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  previous  to  the 
existence  of  any  mental  or  moral  faculties  in  man — pre- 
vious to  his  having  life.  He  afterward  breathed  into 
him  the  breath  of  life,  and  he  became  a  living  soul. 

3d.  Abel  being  good,  is  as  good  proof  of  the  perfect 
holiness  of  nature,  as  Cain's  sin  is  of  its  total  depravity. 
Were  that  doctrine  true,  hate  would  everywhere  take  the 
place  of  love,  and  there  would  be  no  good  feeling  left  in 
the  world.  Our  conscience  would  approve  of  all  wrong, 
and  peace  of  mind  would  be  the  consequence  of  sin.  It 
can  not  be  that  children  are  born  totally  depraved.  We 
all  feel  that  they  are  innocent  of  crime.  It  is  the  pure 
outflowing  from  the  heart  in  words,  of  the  consciousness 
of  their  innocence,  which  makes  mothers  so  often  ex- 
claim, "If  children  are  not  saved,  then  who  will  be?" 
Mothers  feel  this  ;  fathers  feel  it.  Why,  but  because 
they  are  innocent  ?  If  you  convince  those  fathers,  those 
mothers,  that  they  are  totally  depraved — little  fiends — as 
poison  as  rattlesnakes — the  argument  for  their  salvation 
is  lost. 

4th.  There  is  no  proof  that  Adam's  children  were  born 
totally  depraved.  That  is  a  forced  and  unnatural  con- 
struction of  the  text,  which  applies,  begat  a  son  in  his 
own  image,"  to  the  internal  nature  of  the  child.  Image 
refers  not  to  character,  but  likeness.  The  words  "I  have 
gotten  a  man  from  the  Lord,"  are  better  proof  of  the 
purity  of  nature. 

5th.  If  our  nature  were  totally  depraved,  man  would 
develop  himself  best,  and  improve  most  in  sin ;  because 
everything  thrives  best  in  its  own  natural  element ;  but 
facts  contradict  this  hypothesis. 

6th.  That  children  sin,  is  no  more  proof  that  they  are 
totally  depraved,  tlian  that  they  do  good  is,  that  they  are 


380 


DISCUSSION  ON 


perfectly  righteous.  2  Pet.  ii,  4.  "Angels  sinned  and 
yet  no  one  will  say  that  tliey  were  created  totally  depraved. 

7th.  A  child's  sinning  soon,  is  no  proof  that  it  is 
totally  depraved ;  for  Adam  sinned  soon,  though  he  was 
not  created  totally  depraved. 

Sth.  If  all  were  totally  depraved,  then  their  nature 
would  be  so  contrary  to  the  Gospel,  that  Gospel  seed 
would  find  no  congenial  soil — no  good  ground ;  and  the 
farmer  well  knows,  that  he  not  only  requu'es  good  seed, 
but  a  congenial  soil  to  raise  good  fruit. 

9th.  If  our  natures  were  totally  depraved,  and  we  were 
inclined  to  evil  naturally,  as  the  sparks  fly  upward,'' 
then  we  would  sin  just  as  unremittingly  as  the  sparks 
fly  upward  ;  all  this  congregation  would  immediately 
commence  cursing,  blaspheming,  and  sinning  in  every 
way,  just  as  truly  as  the  sparks  fly  upward. 

iOth.  If  we  were  totally  depraved  by  nature,  then 
mothers  would  naturally  hate  their  children :  since 
mother  and  child  would  both  be  totally  depraved.  Hence, 
mothers  would  all  destroy  their  children ;  also  children 
their  parents  ;  brothers  would  hate  their  sisters,  and  sis- 
ters would  hate  their  brothers. 

11th.  Then  hate ^  Jierce  and  sanguinary^  ^oxA^  uni- 
versally take  the  place  of  love. 

12th.  Then  siu  of  all  kinds,  would  cause  great  peace 
of  mind,  since  it  would  be  in  accordance  with  our  nature, 
and  nature  would  find  rest  in  sin.  For  as  we  see  the  lion, 
wolf,  tiger,  (fee,  are  only  happy  when  developing  their  na- 
ture unrestrained;  so  we  would  only  be  happy  in  sin. 

13th.  If  we  are  born  totally  depraved,  then  there  is  no 
hope  for  children  dying  before  repentance ;  since  the  as- 
surance of  their  salvation  is  everywhere  predicated  upon 
their  innocence.  Matt,  xviii,  3,  "Jesus  said,  Sufier  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of 
such  (not  totally  depraved)  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  I  challenge  my  brother  to  produce  one  text, 
which  promises  salvation  to  totally  depraved  little  child- 
ren  dying  without  repentance  or  faith. 


HUMAN  DEPRATITT. 


381 


14th.  If  cMldren  are  not  totally  depraved  by  nature^ 
then  none  of  us  are,  for  we  were  all  oace  children. 

loth.  But  if  children  are  born  totally  dej^M-aved,  then 
they  can  not  go  astray,  since  they  are  entirely  astray  in 
the  start. 

16th.  The  text,  "As  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ 
shall  all  be  made  alive.''  is  no  promise  of  salvation  from 
total  depravity  to  children,  since  it  is  a  physical  death 
and  resurrection  of  which  the  apostle  is  treating. 

17th.  We  have  many  exceptions  to  general  and  ex- 
treme depravity,  both  in  and  out  of  the  church.  We 
often  find  heavenly  virtues  cultivated  in  the  lives  of  un- 
regenerate  men ;  and  the  Bible,  m  far  from  teaching  that 
those  virtues  are  sinful,  teaches  the  contrary;  and  presents 
us  with  such  virtuous  characters,  out  of  any  visible 
Church  organization,  as  Melchizedec,  Job,-  and  the  good 
Samaritan,  by  which  characters,  Buch  views  are  proved 
untrue.  Rom.  iii,  10,  "  There  is  none  righteous,"  <fec., 
is  explained  to  mean  a  certain  class,  viz :  the  wicked,  by 
the  following  sentence,  '*  Have  all  the  workers  of  iniquity 
no  knowledge,  who  eat  up  my  people  as  they  eat  bread  ?" 
Ps.  xiv,  3.  God's  people  did  good.  Eph.  ii,  3,  "Were 
by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others,"  alludes 
not  to  our  internal  nature :  but  as  Dr.  Macknight  says 
on  this  text,  Xature  often  signifies  one's  birth  or  edu- 
cation; as  Gal.  ii,  15.  'We  who  are  Jews  by  nature;' 
also  natural  reason  and  conscience,  as  Eom.  ii,  14,  'The 
Gentiles  who  have  not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the  things 
of  the  law.'  Also,  the  general  sense  and  practice  of 
mankind,  1  Cor.  xi,  14,  *  Doth  not  even  nature  itself 
teach  you,  that  if  a  man  wear  long  hair,'  d:c.  In  the 
passage  under  consideration,  nature  is  that  second  cor- 
rupt, dead  nature,  which  men  form  in  themselves  by 
habitually  indulging  vicious  inclinations  ;  for  the  apostle 
speaks  of  men  being  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath, 
as  the  eflect  of  their  having  their  conversation  in  the 
lusts  of  the  flesh.  Children  of  xrraih  is  a  Hebraism 
signitying,  liable  to  wrath." — Macknight  on  Eph.  ii,  3. 


382 


DISCUSSION  ON 


Mr.  Flood's  Second  address,  and  Twenty-sixth  speech  : 
My  first  busiue^  will  be  to  review  my  brother  in  his 
response  to  my  argument.  He  expresses  himself  as 
highly  gratified  with  the  course  I  pursued  ;  and  he  hopes 
his  opponent  may  be  equally  gratified.  He  first  refers  to 
the  tumbler — until  separated,  the  water  remains  entirely 
depraved.  My  brother  stated  the  great  argument  to  be 
the  total,  hereditary  depravity  of  human  nature.  Neither 
"word  occurs  in  the  proposition — neither  total  nor  heredi- 
tary. He  is  fruitful  in  discoveries ;  it  would  be  very 
convenient  for  him  to  change  the  terms ;  if  he  could, 
he  would  now  mystity  the  matter.  I  have  read  Webster's 
definition  and  would  have  you  keep  it  before  you. 

I  have  never  once  employed  the  word  total  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  subject;  it  is  a  word  of  my  brother's, 
although  he  professes  to  favor  Scripture  plu-aseology ; 
but  he  should  stick  to  the  proposition  submitted  for  dis- 
cussion. I  admit  that  human  nature,  in  its  fallen  and 
depraved  condition,  is  capable  of  being  restored  and 
sanctified  ;  in  which  state  it  enjoys  communion  with  God, 
in  its  fullness  and  glory;  every  stage  of  which  process  of 
salvation,  is  accomplished  through  the  merit  and  atone- 
ment of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whether  applied  to  human 
nature,  in  its  passive  condition,  receiving  the  passive 
benefit  of  Christ's  atonement,  or  receiving  the  merit  of 
his  atonement  for  sins  actually  committed,  it  opens  a 
door  of  hope  to  the  perishing  and  lost,  and  invites  them 
to  come  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ. 

By  what  law  shall  man  be  justified — the  law  of  works  ? 
aSo  \  but  the  law  of  faith.  So  that  faith  in  the  atone- 
ment of  Jesus  Christ,  restores  him  to  the  condition  in 
which  he  stood  before  the  fall  of  Adam.  My  opponent 
denies  that  the  fall  of  Adam  included  a  moral  death.  I 
do  not  wonder  at  Mr.  Summerbell  being  claimed  by 
Uuiversalists.  The  Universalists  will  be  found  with 
him  here,  in  denying  that  a  moral  death  is  implied  ; 
that  though  he  broke  the  only  law  given  him  in  a  state 
of  innocence,  he  does  not  morally  die ;  and  though  he 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY.  383 

has  traDSgressed,  yet  he  is  still  spiritually  alive  in  the 
sight  of  God.  Ballou^  Balfour^  Rogers,  and  a  host  of 
others,  advocate  the  same  position  precisely,  that  the 
soul,  or  spirit  was  not  depraved  in  consequence  of  the 
fall,  but  is  still  pure  in  the  sight  of  God.  My  ])rother 
asks,  is  a  man,  after  his  conversion,  as  good  as  an  infant  ? 
Jesus  Christ  said,  ''Except  a  man  be  converted  and  be- 
come as  a  little  child,  he  can  not  enter  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  After  conversion,  he  is  justified  by  virtue  of 
what  Christ  has  done  for  him,  through  the  redemption  that 
is  in  Christ  Jesus.  Hence,  he  assumes  the  same  justified 
relation  that  the  infant  does  in  the  sight  of  God.  Child- 
ren, he  exclaims,  totally  depraved  I  Who  ever  asserted 
it  ?  Children  share  the  benefit  of  Christ's  death,  as  they 
fell  passively  in  their  federal  head,  so  are  they  redeemed 
passively  by  Jesus  Christ. 

I  suppose  Mr.  Summerbell  will  understand  this  posi- 
tion. He  desired  me  to  invert  the  language  of  our  Sa- 
viour. That  would  be  insulting  to  Jehovah,  who  has  never 
uttered  such  a  sentiment  in  any  portion  of  his  Word. 
He  says  there  is  a  conscience  in  the  wicked  that  may  be 
touched  ;  and  from  this  he  supposed  they  are  not  entirely 
depraved.  Now,  I  read  of  a  conscience  that  is  seared  as 
with  a  hot  iron,  and  one  that  is  become  so  lost  to  a 
sense  of  its  obligations,  that  it  is  invulnerable,  even  to 
things  of  divine  truth.  That  is  the  state  of  the  wicked ; 
they  are  always  represented  as  dead.  The  Scriptures 
say,  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall  give  thee  light. 
But  how,  by  natural  strength,  by  being  possessed  of  a 
power  that  is  not  naturally  depraved,  exerting  that  natural 
power  and  arising  from  the  dead  ? 

This  figure  of  speech  is  employed  to  represent  the  con- 
dition of  the  wicked,  and  but  very  poorly  represents  the 
idea  of  partial  depravity.  "  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
with  God."  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity,  and,  of  course, 
in  hostility  against  God  ;  it  is  arrayed  against  God  with 
all  the  energy  it  possesses. 

"If  we  are  totally  depraved  in  the  start,  we  never 


384 


DISCUSSION  ON 


could  become  worse."  Here  is  the  word  total  again.  I 
Dotice  it  in  every  single  case.  Who  used  the  word  total  ? 
I  assumed  that  human  nature  was  depraved  in  all  its 
parts,  thorouglily  and  entirely  depraved  by  sin ;  the 
transgression  of  a  single  law  of  God,  polluted  and  cor- 
rupted the  whole  man.  There  has  no  part  escaped  the 
contagion  of  sin — it  spread  through  man's  whole  body  ; 
"  but  he  would  not,  then,  become  worse  and  worse."  I 
have  never  yet  asserted  it.  In  my  flesh,"  according  to 
the  language  of  Paul,  ''there  is  no  good  thing."  My 
brother  says,  "  Paul  does  not  intimate  that  in  his  spirit 
there  is  no  good  thing."  If  he  intimates  that  in  his 
fallen  condition  there  is  no  good  thing,  then,  in  the  spirit, 
there  is  some  good  thing — that  it  is  the  soul  or  spirit  that 
is  not  depraved. 

Does  he  assume  this  is  Paul's  converted  condition  ? 
He  was  as  other  converted  men  in  proportion  to  his 
attainment  in  moral  virtue.  How  was  he  righteous  ? 
By  the  deeds  of  the  law,  or  belief  in  the  promise  made, 
"  That  the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's 
bead?"  Was  it  by  a  passive  obedience,  or  was  he  justi- 
fied as  other  sinners,  through  faith  in  the  promised  Mes- 
siah ?  He  refers  to  the  quotation  made  from  Job,  and 
says  it  is  not  inspired  ;  I  leave  you  to  consider  this  shift. 
He  then  quotes  Neandei\  and  defines  the  term  guilty. 
That  sounds  very  much  like  that,  when  a  man  is  guilty, 
and  hardening  his  heart,  he  must  be  very  much  depraved; 
as  soon  as  the  Bible  fails,  he  appeals  to  Neander. 

If  children  are  entirely  depraved,  they  go  astray  as  soon 
as  they  are  born.  There  is  a  real  disposition  to  evil.  It 
grows  out  of  the  fact  of  the  children  inheriting  the  fallen 
nature  of  the  parents ;  but  the  infant  never  becomes  culpa- 
ble before  God,  until  it  actually  and  knowingly  transgresses 
the  law  of  God.  We  have  proof  that  children  are  born  in 
a  depraved  state,  but  not  in  a  state  of  guilt.  Genesis  iv, 
9, 10,  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Cain,  where  is  Abel,  thy 
brother  ?  And  he  said,  I  know  not :  am  I  my  brother's 
keeper  \    And  he  said,  What  hast  thou  done  ?  the  voice 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


885 


of  thy  brother's  blood  crieth  unto  me  from  tne  ground." 
How,  was  Abel  justified  by  laith  ? 

Hebrews  xi,  4,  By  faith  Abol  offered  unto  God  a 
more  excellent  sacrifice  than  Cain's,  by  which  he  obtained 
witness  that  he  was  righteous :  God  justifying  his  gifts, 
and  by  it  he  being  dead,  yet  speaketli."  Here  we  have 
the  ground  of  AheVs  standing  justified  in  the  sight 
of  God,  that  he  had  faith.  When  he  came  to  offer 
his  sacrifice,  he  brought  the  firstlings  of  his  flock,  and 
these  were  types  like  unto  the  great  sacrifice  that  should 
be  made  and  ofiered  for  sin.  Hence,  Abel  was  justified 
in  the  sight  of  God  ;  and  though  thousands  of  years  have 
passed  away,  man  is  justified  by  faith  in  the  Messiah  still. 

Cain  brought  the  fruits  of  the  ground — his  offering 
was  not  calculated,  in  its  nature,  to  indicate  faith  in  the 
promised  Messiah,  and  this  induced  Cain  to  envy  the 
better  condition  of  his  brother ;  and  when  they  were 
alone  in  the  field,  he  rose  up  against  him.  and  slew  him. 
Rather  an  unfortunate  matter  for  my  brother  to  refer  to. 
First,  an  act  of  murder,  perpetrated  by  a  brother  upon 
the  person  of  a  brother ;  and  then  the  manifestation  of 
hypocrisy.  This  depravity  produced  a  falsehood  ;  he 
said,  I  know  not;  but  he  knew  well.  He  showed  indif- 
ference for  his  brother's  welfare ;  and  he  inquired,  im- 
pudently addressing  himself  thus  to  his  Creator,  Am 
I  my  brother's  keeper  V  But  God  said,  What  hast 
thou  done  ?  the  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood  crieth  unto 
me  from  the  ground."  The  baseness  of  thy  heart  is 
opened  and  exposed  to  my  view ;  the  deep,  dark,  and 
horrible  secrets  of  wickedness,  that  dwell  within  thy 
heart,  are  all  exposed  to  view ;  the  murderous  impulses 
of  soul  that  prompted  thee  to  the  destruction  of  thy  bro- 
ther, are  all  before  me,  and  1  hold  thee  to  a  strict 
accountability. 

My  brother  said,  that  Adam's  children  were  not  bom 
totally  depraved.  We  have  never  asserted  once  that  they 
were  born  totally  depraved  ;  this  is  the  language  of  my 
friend ;  he  may  use  it,  but  I  shall  adhere  closely  to  the 
33 

1 


886 


DISCUSSION  ON 


proposition,  to  the  close  of  the  subject,  this  afternoon. 
Irrelevant  matter  (except  so  far  as  I  nmj  be  drawn  aside 
by  my  brother,)  will  not  be  found  to  have  a  place  in  this 
argument. 

He  says  that  if  man  is  by  nature  inclined  to  evil,  he 
"will  improve  the  more  by  continuing  in  wickedness.  This 
is  my  friend's  theology.  I  do  not  wish  to  father  it.  He 
may  nurture  it  at  his  leisure.  I  have  assumed  no  such 
condition. 

Mr.  Summerbell's  Second  reply  and  Twenty-sixth  speech: 
Kind  Friends — My  brother's  position,  that  children  are 
sinners,  is  contrary  to  Paul,  who  says,  Rom.  ix,  11, 
"  At  birth,  the  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  having 
done  any  good  or  evilP  He  charges  me  with  saying, 
that  if  they  are  totally  depraved  they  had  better  continue 
in  sin.  I  said  no  such  thing  ;  but  that  if  their  argument 
be  true,  they  w^ould  thrive  better  in  sin  than  in  righteous- 
ness. If  you  take  a  bird  out  of  the  air  and  confine  it  to 
the  water,  you  wall  destroy  it,  because  you  violate  its 
nature. 

If  you  take  a  fish  out  of  the  water,  you  destroy  it, 
because  you  remove  it  from  its  natural  element.  No 
principle  is  capable  of  clearer  philosophical  demonstra- 
tion than  this :  that  everything  thrives  best  in  its  natural 
element.  Thus,  if  you  take  a  tree  from  its  natural  soil, 
even  on  the  barren  heath,  and  plant  it  in  the  rich  alluvial 
soil,  or  even  gold  dust^  — will  it  thrive  ?  Everything 
flourishes  best  in  its  ow^n  natural  element.  And  since 
my  brother  makes  man's  nature  totally  depraved^  he 
must  fight  the  whole  philosophy  of  nature,  or  admit 
that  man  will  flourish  best  in  sin ;  but  this  is  contrary  to 
all  observation  and  experience.  Sin  wars  on  our  nature ; 
it  hardens  the  heart,  disturbs  the  mind,  sears  the  con- 
science, is  repugnant  to  the  soul ;  it  is  not  in  his  upright 
way^  but  ho,  falls  into  it ;  it  is  not  his  nature,  but  a  llot^ 
a  stain^  a  spot  on  his  nature ;  it  destroys  his  nature, 
destroys  his  humanity,  and  finally  destroys  the  man,  body 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


88T 


and  soul.  My  brother  ^avely  objects  to  my  nse  of  the 
words,  "  totally  depraved."  I  am  here  to  discuss  the 
question- of  Depravity. "^"^    If  he  does  not  believe 

that  human  nature  is  totally  depraved,  let  him  say  so, 
and  the  discussion  is  ended.  But  I  will  not  allow  him  to 
dodge  the  point.  Totally,  means  entirehj^  or  it  means 
nothing.  1  am  not  here  to  argue  that  men  are  not  de- 
praved. /  helieve  that^  and  lament  over  it.  But  I  con- 
tend, that  however  bad,  they  are  not  totally  dejrraved 
hy  nature.  Is  not  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity  taught 
by  the  orthodox  %  Then,  why  try  to  avoid  it  %  He  says, 
that  the  Universal ists  claim  me.  Yery  well,  my  friends, 
I  am  not  at  all  concerned  at  that.  I  do  not  know,  but 
what  a  Universalist  may  JZ;?/  he  saved  !  I  have  never 
studied  their  theory  much,  but  1  am  not  their  judge.  It 
is  very  easy  for  us  to  despise  others,  but  the  great  thing 
is,  to  be  sure  that  we  are  right  ourselves.  I  remember 
our  Saviour  said,  that  it  would  be  more  tolerable  in  the 
day  of  judgment,  for  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  than  for 
some  who  heard  him  and  were  accounted  orthodox.  If 
a  Universalist  said  a  word  in  my  favor,  I  will  warrant 
you,  my  brother  would  rather  it  had  been  said  in  his. 
He  is  troubled  that  they  speak  in  my  favor,  but  I  can  not 
help  it ;  things  will  go  so.  My  brother  objects  to  the 
word  total ^  but  he  does  not  deny  that  children  are  entirely 
depraved.  Now,  let  him  convince  the  mother,  if  he  can, 
that  the  smiling  infant  at  her  breast  is  a  smiling  fiend — 
entirely  depraved  and  inclined  to  evil  only,  and  that  con- 
tinually ;  that  when  it  looks  up  to  its  mother,  it  is  the 
look  of  a  serpent ;  that  its  smile  is  not  the  reflection 
of  the  sunliglit  of  heaven,  but  the  evidence  of  total 
depravity. 

Mr.  Flood. — I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  sit  here,  and 
listen  to  these  misrepresentations  of  my  views.  I  have 
never  once  said  that  children  were  totally  depraved. 

Mr.  Su]srMERBELL. — Will  you  deny  that  they  are  ? 

Mr.  Flood. — I  do  deny  it.  Children  are  not  totally- 
depraved. 


888 


DISCUSSION  ON 


Mr.  Soimerbell. — I  do  not  know  where  the  gentle- 
man is,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  he  himself  knows. 

Mr.  Flood. — I  will  not  allow  him  to  say,  that  I  have 
asserted  the  total  depravity  of  infants. 

Mr.  SuMiiERBELL. — After  I  arrived  here,  my  brother 
objected  to  the  word  totally^  because,  as  he  said,  it  was 
unpopular,  but  was  willing  to  insert  the  word,  entirely^ 
which,  he  said,  meant  just  the  same  thing.  And  the 
sentence  included  in  the  parentheses,  was  put  in  to  suit 
him,  as  he  would  not  consent  to  discuss  the  question 
without  it.  I  expected  some  such  squirming  as  this, 
when  it  came  to  the  point. 

Mr.  Flood. — I  want  no  misrepresentation  of  my  views. 

Mr.  SumiERBELL. — Will  the  Moderators  2^^-^^^^  to  tell 
ns  the  difference  between  totally  and  entirely  ? 

Mr.  Flood. — That  is  not  the  question. 

Moderators. — The  Board  wishes  to  understand  what 
the  point  of  difference  is  ? 

Mr.  Flood. — I  stated  that  infants,  in  their  passive 
condition,  stand  justified  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  sus- 
tain the  same  relation  to  Jesus  Christ  that  older  converts 
do.  All  actual  sinners  are  depraved  ;  but  children  are 
not  actual  sinners,  and  therefore  can  not  be  entirely 
depraved.  They  are  huuian  nature  fallen,  but  not 
totally  depraved. 

Mr.  Scmmerbell. — But  if  human  nature  is  totally- 
depraved,  and  this  depravity  is  engeiidered  hy  natural 
generation^  as  his  Creed  says,  then  it  must  exist  in 
children  before  they  are  adults. 

Moderators. — We  submit,  that  there  seems  on  the 
very  face  of  the  proposition,  an  inconceivable  difficulty. 
If  we  strike  out  the  parentheses,  we  can  decide  ;  but  as  it 
is,  we  can  not. 

Mr.  Flood. — The  first  pare  of  the  proposition,  relates 
to  the  condition  of  man,  during  the  time  that  elapsed 
from  the  fall  to  the  prom.ise  of  the  Messiah.  The  second, 
to  the  condition  of  actual  transgressors,  whether  they 
be  entirely  or  partially  depraved. 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


889 


Mr.  SuisrMERBELL. — [Reads  from  the  Protestant  Meth- 
odist Articles  of  Relii^jion.]  "  Original  sin  standeth  not 
in  the  following  of  Adam,  (as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly 
talk,)  but  is  the  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man, 
that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  oflspring  of  Adam, 
whereby  man  is  very  far  gone  from  original  righteous- 
ness, and  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil,  and  that 
continually."  Here  it  distinctly  says,  that  man  is,  of  his 
owri  nature^  inclined  to  evil,  and  that  continually;  and 
that  this  depravity  is  engendered  of  the  ofispring  of 
Adam,  and  yet  he  denies  the  depravity  of  infants. 

Mr.  Flood. — There  is  unfairness  in  this. 

Mr.  Summerbell. —  You  said  thai  you  did^  before 
this  audience. 

Mr.  Flood. — I  stated  that  Adam,  in  his  fall,  prior  to 
the  promise  of  redemption,  was  in  a  state  fallen  from 
grace,  and  consequently  that  all  actual  transgressors  of 
God's  law  are  entirely  depraved  ;  and  that  those  inherit- 
ing a  fallen  nature,  are  inclined  to  evil,  and  that  continu- 
ally. The  inclination  to  evil,  I  admit ;  but  the  guiltiness 
and  entire  depravity  of  infancy,  I  have  never  assumed, 
but  precisely  the  opposite. 

Moderators. — The  difficulty  is,  in  understanding  what 
the  disputants  intended.  Was  it,  that  mankind,  through 
the  transgression  of  Adam,  became  entirely  depraved  ? 

Mr.  Flood. — No  sir  !  I  will  admit  of  no  such  modi- 
fication. 

Mr.  Summerbell. — I  wish  my  brother  w^ould  admit 
the  word,  total^  and  if  he  does  not  believe  it,  he  may 
choose  any  other  minister  to  discuss  it.  A  Presby- 
terian, or — 

Mr.  Flood. — Yes ;  you  would  like  very  well  to  get 
rid  of  me. 

Mr.  Summerbell. — Not  at  all ;  but  that  is  the  only 
question,  and  you  admitted  that  totally  and  entirely 
meant  the  same. 

Mr.  Flood. — My  brother  continues  to  put  words  into 
my  mouth. 


390 


DISCUSSION  ON 


MoDEEATORs. — "Will  the  speakers  consent  to  this  mod- 
ification ?  ''Are  mankind,  througli  the  transgression  of 
Adam,  up  to  the  promise  of  the  Messiali.  entirely 
depraved  V 

Mr,  Summerbell. — When  was  that  promise  made  ? 
My  brother  might  say,  tiiat  it  was  made  in  tv:o  houra^ 
and  so  confine  total  depravity  to  that  short  period.  I 
will  consent  to  an}'  modification  that  will  leave  a  question 
between  us. 

Mr.  Flood. — My  brother  is  fruitful  in  discoveries.  I 
never  before  heard  that  any  divine  had  fixed  the  period. 
Mr.  Summerbell  is  willing  to  argue  a  false  issue,  if 
I  am. 

Mr.  Sl'mmerbell.  —  I  am  willing  to  prove  yours  a 
false  issue. 

Mr.  Flood. — That  every  actual  sinner  violating  the 
law  of  God,  is  entirely  depraved  ;  that  is  a  point  no 
theologian  is  disposed  to  deny.  (Reads  the  Article  on 
Depravity  from  the  Discipline.)  I  agree  with  this,  and 
am  willing  to  prove  it  true.  I  propose  to  accept  the 
Article. 

Mr.  Su^niERBELL. — I  refuse  to  do  so,  because  the  Ar- 
ticle does  not  say  totally  depraved  ;  but  if  he  will  admit 
that  it  means  that,  I  will  discuss  it.  I  did  not  know  that 
he  had  a  secret  design  in  changing  the  word  totally  to 
entirely. 

Mr.  Flood. — He  says  he  did  not  know  I  had  a  secret 
design  in  introducing  the  word  entirely^  instead  of 
totoXly.  I  wish  you  to  notice  that  he  impugns  my  mo- 
tives. This  is  not  the  first  time  he  has  uttered  such 
insinuations  ;  but  these  lunges  at  a  person's  reputation, 
are  most  discreditable. 

Mr.  Sl-:mmereell. — I  can  bring  witnesses  to  prove, 
that  he  admitted  that  the  words  meant  the  same,  when 
he  inserted  entirely. 

Moderators.  —  The  conclusion  the  board  has  come 
to  is,  that  the  words  in  the  parentheses  do  not  alter  the 
questioD. 


HUMAX  DEPRAVITY. 


891 


Me.  Flood. — The  board  seems  to  have  changed  its 
ground.  I  suppose  they  intend  to  do  what  is  right.  One 
of  them  is  on  my  side,  and  one  on  Mr.  Summerbell's, 
the  third  one,  I  suppose — 

Mr.  SciiMERBELL. — As  mv  brother  does  not  seem  to 
be  satisfied  with  the  decision,  I  am  willing  to  leave  it  to 
a  minister,  whom  I  see  in  the  congregation,  who,  I  think, 
is  a  grammarian,  and  is  on  his  side  of  the  house,  though 
I  am  not  acquainted  with  him. 

Mr.  Flood. — Who  is  he  ? 

Mr.  SoniERBELL. — I  do  not  know  his  name. 

Mr.  Flood. — How  do  you  know  that  he  is  on  my  side 
of  the  question  ? 

Mr.  SuiDiERBELL. — I  do  not ;  but  I  think  he  is,  and 
if  he  is  not,  you  may  object  to  him  when  he  arises. 

Mr.  Flood. — Well,  call  upon  him. 

Mr.  Summerbell  then  pointed  out  the  Eev.  Mr.  , 

of  the  M.  E.  Church,  who  was  immediately  accepted  by 
Mr.  Flood,  and  the  decision  submitted  to  him  by  the 
Moderators. 

Eev.  Mr.   ,  (Eeads  the  proposition.)    I  under- 

,  stand  by  the  parenthesis  here  introduced,  that  man  was 
depraved  up  to  the  time  that  redemption  was  promised 
by  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  after  this  redemption  was  pro- 
mised by  Christ,  we  no  longer  remain  depraved,  in  the 
sense  that  we  were  depraved  before  that  promise  was 
made.  I  understand  the  term  mankind^  to  refer  to  the 
whole  of  the  human  family,  and  that,  therefore,  all  are 
depraved,  and  that  infants,  before  they  are  regenerated, 
are  depraved.  I  also  understand  the  doctrine  of  the 
Article  to  be  total  depravity.  I  think  that  without  this 
parenthesis,  the  proposition  of  the  question  will  be  pro- 
perly stated.  '"''Mankind^  through  the  transgressioTt  of 
Adarii^  are  hy  nature^  entirely  depraved^  and  inclined 
to  eml^  and  that  continually.^^ 

Mr.  Suloierbell.  —  My  brother  has  acknowledged 
that  he  did  mean  entirely  depraved,  and  that  entirely 
means  the  same  as  totally.    But  he  denies  that  children 


892 


DISCUSSION  ON 


are  totally  depraved  ;  but  bis  discipline  says,  tbat  entire 
depravity  comes  hy  generation  ;  if  so,  they  must  be  en- 
tirely depraved.  He  says  that  one  transgression  will 
make  us  totally  depraved.  If  so,  then,  we  are  all  totally 
depraved  now,  no  matter  when  converted.  If  we  were 
totally  depraved,  we  would  hate  our  children,  instead  of 
loving  them.  Pouring  poison  into  a  tumbler  of  water, 
will  not  change  the  nature  of  the  water ;  but  it  is  the 
nature  of  the  water  to  purify  itself  from  the  poison, 
showing  the  poison  to  be  contrary  to  its  nature.  So  in 
conversion,  we  are  purified  from  our  sins  ;  but  we  still 
retain  human  nature.  God  so  loved  us  even  before  con- 
verted, as  to  give  his  only  begotten  Son  for  our  salvation  ; 
but  do  you  suppose  that  God  could  love  us,  if  we  were 
totally  depraved,  with  no  single  good  thing  connected 
wnth  usi  What  would  there  be  to  love,  but  total  de- 
pravity— sin  ?  and  God  cannot  look  upon  sin  w-ith  the 
least  degree  of  allowance.  I  know  not,  but  that  the  rea- 
son why  salvation  is  not  provided  for  fallen  angels,  if  it 
be  not,  is  because  they  are  totally  depraved.  I  say  ^/, 
it  be  not,  for  some  persons  suppose  that  they  have  re- 
demption. A  very  learned  man  has  lately  published  a  ^ 
work,  to  prove  that  Clirist  saves  persons  in  the  spirit- 
world.  But  if  they  were  totally  depraved,  it  would  be 
a  good  reason  why  God  would  not  love  them,  or  provide 
a  Saviour  for  them. 

Conversion  is  called  washing;  but  in  w^ashing,  the 
garment  is  there ;  its  texture,  its  nature  is  unchanged  ; 
it  is  only  defiled,  not  destroyed,  and  in  washing,  the  de- 
filement is  separated  from  it.  It  is  not  the  nature  of  the 
garment  that  is  taken  away.  Christ  is  called  a  refiner's 
fire ;  but  we  never  refine  dross.  There  must  be  some 
gold,  w^hen  it  goes  into  the  refiner's  fire,  or  none  will 
pass  through  it.  The  dross  will  not  become  gold.  There 
must  be  something  good  in  man,  to  afibrd  a  foundation 
for  God  to  love  him,  or  for  Christ  to  love  him.  They 
can  not  love  total  depravity.  In  the  parable  of  the  hun- 
dred sheep,  where  one  was  lost,  it  was  not  a  wolf  that 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


893 


was  lost,  but  a  sheep  of  the  same  nature  of  the  ninety- 
nine  left  in  the  wilderness.  Not  one  that  was  never  in 
tb.e  fold;  but  one  of  the  original  hundred.  They  re- 
mained ;  but  this  one  was  a  lost  sheep,  which  the  shep- 
\^rd  loved,  and  left  the  ninety  and  nine  to  bring  back  to 
tlie  fold.  Ttiis  parable  beautifully  ilhistrates  our  going 
astray,  and  our  lost  condition  ;  but  if  our  nature  become 
changed,  totally  depraved,  leaving  no  good  about  us, 
the  great  Shepherd  could  not  love  ns,  and  no  attempt 
would  be  made  to  redeem  us.  In  the  parable  of  the 
woman  that  had  the  ten  pieces  of  silver,  of  which  one 
was  lost,  the  Saviour  does  not  teach  that  she  originally 
had  nine,  and  sought  another  in  the  mines  ;  or  that  the 
lost  one  was  not  silver.  Nor,  when  she  found  it,  did  she 
find  an  entire  lump  of  dross,  with  no  silver  about  it ;  but 
there  was  good  metal  even  in  the  lost  piece.  So,  also, 
in  the  parabl,e  of  the  prodigal  son.  It  was  not  that  the 
father  liad  one  son,  and  sent  and  procured  a  wild  man  ; 
or  a  being  of  totally  distinct  nature,  and  adopted  as  a 
second  son  ;  but  it  was  his  own  son,  who  was  originally 
in  his  own  father's  house,  and  who,  of  his  Own  choice, 
left  that  house,  and  went  into  a  far  country,  and  spent 
the  substance,  which  he  had  received  of  a  loving  father,  in 
riotous  living ;  who  remembered  his  father's  house,  from 
whence  he  came,  and  said,  I  will  arise  and  go  to  my 
father,  and  I  will  say,  I  have  sinned  ;  but  his  father  saw 
him,  when  he  was  yet  a  great  way  ofi',  and  though  he 
had  rebelled,  yet  the  flither  loved  him,  and  ran  and  fell 
on  his  neck,  and  kissed  him,  and  brought  him  into  the 
house,  and  commanded  them  to  bring  forth  the  best  robe 
and  put  it  on  him,  and  a  ring  on  his  finger,  and  shoes 
on  his  feet,  and  to  kill  the  fatted  calf;  for,  said  he,  this, 
my  son^  which  was  dead,  is  alive  again,  and  was  lost,  i^ 
found.  Bless  God  for  such  illustrations  of  his  love.  The 
son  was  not  horn  a  prodigal,  in  a  strange  land,  or  far  off 
country;  but  he  came  back  to  the  place  of  his  birth,  to 
his  own  father's  house.  True,  the  sinner  is  dead  in 
trespasses,  and  in  sins ;  but  this  death  does  not  imply  a 


894 


DISCUSSION  ON 


lack  of  all  life,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  do  any  good  ; 
any  more  than  tlie  saint's  deadness  to  sin — ye  are  dead, 
and  3'our  lite  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God — implies  that 
they  have  not  power  to  sin  ;  but  it  signifies  deadness  to 
the  life  of  holiness.  Those  tlms  dead,  are  free  to  do  good, 
if  they  will,  and  are  absolutely  called  upon  to  do  good*: 
"Awake,  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead." 
This  deadness  is  not  a  deadness  of  power  or  ability' ;  but 
a  cessation  of  efibrt  and  activity. 

Mr.  Flood's  Third  address,  and  Twenty-seventh  speech : 
We  proceed  now,  briefly,  to  review  our  opponent,  Mr. 
Summerbell.  He  insists,  that  if  human  nature  is  entirely 
depraved  in  the  progeny  of  a  fallen  head,  as  the  descend- 
ants of  x\dara  must  necessarily  be,  then  Adam  must 
have  been  entirely  depraved  when  he  proceeded  from  the 
hand  of  God.  We  believe  that  like  produces  like — that 
Adam,  in  his  creation,  was  made  upright  in  the  sight  of 
his  Creator,  God,  and  that  in  sinning  against  God  he 
lost  that  likeness,  and  that  this  constitutes  the  nature  of 
his  fall.  He  fell  from  the  fovor  and  friendship  of  heaven, 
by  violating  the  law-  of  God.  He  says,  if  this  doctrine 
of  depravity  were  true,  mothers,  instead  of  loving  their 
children,  would  kill  them.  Is  not  my  brother  aware  that 
this  practice  prevails  in  heathen  countries  ?  There  are 
thousands  of  children  sacrificed  annually,  being  cast  into 
the  Ganges,  and  multitudes  perish  annually  under  the 
rolling  wheels  of  Juggernaut.  Such  is  the  depravity  of 
human  nature.  We  quote  from  Romans  i,  31,  With- 
out understanding,  covenant-breakers,  without  natural 
aftection,  implacable,  unmerciful:''  referring,  doubtless, 
to  the  heathen  worship.  Such  are  the  consequences  of 
the  fall,  that  it  produces  such  a  measure  of  depravity, 
that  natural  affection  is  lost- -that  the  mother  may  forget 
her  sucking  child.  He  represents  that  they  would  be  as 
bad  as  rattlesnakes,  and  represents  little  children  looking 
up  into  the  faces  of  their  mothers  as  fiends.  Who  has 
assumed  that  little  children,  in  their  redeemed  relation, 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


395 


are  as  rattlesnakes  ?  Though  they  inherit  a  corrupt  na- 
ture, and  are  inclined  to  evil,  yet  the  redemption  by 
Christ  changes  their  relation,  and  they  stand  justified  in 
the  sight  ol*  God,  not  by  natural  generation,  but  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  for  if  infants  be 
saved  by  natural  regeneration,  then  they  will  not  join  the 
Bong  of  the  Redeemer,  and  will  not  be  numbered  with 
the  innumerable  hosts  of  God's  elect  saved  in  heaven ; 
they  will  have  found  their  way  to  heaven  upon  difierent 
ground  altogether.  We  say  of  all  infant  children,  of 
Christian  or  heathen  parents,  that  those  infant  children, 
being  passive  in  the  fall,  received  the  benefit  of  the  atone- 
ment, and  are  saved  in  Jesus  Christ ;  though  by  natural 
generation  they  inherit  the  same  nature  which  their 
parents  possessed — for  like  must  beget  like — ''None  are 
righteous,  no  not  one."  Romans  iii,  10.  How  is  the 
apostle  speaking  of  righteousness  here?  no  living  soul 
can  be  justified  by  the  deeds  of  the  law.  "By  the  deeds 
of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified ;  "  hence,  legally, 
there  are  none  righteous,  no  not  one:  but  in  an  evangel- 
ical sense,  I  am  happy  to  say  there  are  many.  All  in- 
fants sustain  this  relation  in  an  evangelical  sense,  but  not 
in  a  legal  sense.  He  says,  I  have  a  very  crude  theo- 
logy ;  I  suppose  he  so  regards  it.  Perhaps  this  is  the 
reason  why  it  is  so  troublesome  to  him  ;  it  seems  he  has 
found  out  what  my  theology  is,  but  I  will  not  pretend  to 
say  what  his  is,  1  have  made  few  discoveries  in  that  di- 
rection. He,  however,  agrees  with  the  Universalists, 
that  man  did  not  morally  die  in  the  fall,  and  thinks  the 
Bible  is  incorrect  in  stating  that  "  in  the  day  thou  eatest 
thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die."  I  do  not  assume  that  the 
physical  or  intellectual  organization  of  man  was  annihi- 
lated in  the  fall.  We  say  that  all  the  intellectual  and 
physical  qualities  of  man  were  alike  affected  by  the  fall. 
They  were  not  annihilated,  but  turned  into  a  perverse 
direction  ;  hence,  the  will  and  aftections  of  man  are  per- 
verse in  their  natures.  Man's  nature  is  corrupt  and 
depraved, "  corrupt,  polluted  in  all  its  parts hence,  God 


396 


DISCUSSIO:^  ON 


could  not  love  them  with  the  love  of  complacency,  but 
with  tlie  love  of  pity  ;  he  could  not  love  them  to  tlie  ex- 
tent that  he  loved  angels,  but  his  love  was  equal  to  their 
most  extended  wants,  so  that  he  provided  for  their 
redemption  and  salvation. 

lie  says,  at  last,  my  friend  has  acknowledged  that  hu- 
man nature  is  entirely  depraved.  It  is  the  vers'  thing  I 
presented  in  my  first  argument,  and  I  su]:>ported  by  over- 
whelming testimony  from  the  Word  of  God.  I  want  an 
answer  to  those  texts  which  show  the  entire  depravity  of 
human  nature.  The  reference  to  the  parable  of  tlie nine- 
ty-nine sheep,  while  the  good  shepherd  went  in  pursuit 
of  the  hundredth  that  was  lost — that  lost  sheep,  I  sup- 
pose, had  not  lost  its  identity.  So  is  it  with  the  lost 
inhabitants  of  this  world,  they  have  lost  their  moral  ex- 
cellence and  likeness  to  God;  in  this  condition  Jesus 
Christ  found  them,  and  came  to  restore  them  to  favor. 
'"He  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost,"  not 
that  which  was  partially  lost.  If  the  doctrine  of  my 
brother  is  correct,  Jesus  Christ  came  to  perform  a  par- 
tial work.  Then  he  adverts  to  the  parable  of  the  Prodi- 
gal Son — one  of  the  last  I  should  have  thought  he  would 
have  introduced.  What  was  the  condition  of  this  young 
man?  He  was  in  his  fathers  house,  which  he  volun- 
tarily left,  voluntarily  he  wasted  his  goods.  But  at 
length,  it  is  said,  he  came  to  himself,  so  that  he  was  as  a 
man  lost  to  himself.  Do  men  that  are  dead,  awake  to 
life  without  the  voice  of  God  ?  In  order  to  give  some 
show  of  argument,  he  asserted  that  were  man  entirely 
depraved,  he  would  be  as  water  running  down  hill.  1 
said,  that  man  was  inclined  to  evil,  and  that  continually, 
as  I  have  shown  Irom  texts  from  the  Word  of  God,  and 
my  friend  has  not  succeeded  in  making  anything  to  the 
contrary  appear.  I  now  invite  your  attention  to  my 
eighth  proposition. 

8th.  The  relations  of  infants  to  the  law  is  not  the  relation 
sustained  by  actual  transgressors,  though  they  inherit  an 
entirely  depraved  nature  by  their  parentage,  yet  infants 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


39T 


are  passive  in  the  fell,  and  must  be  passive  in  the  redemp- 
tion by  Jesus  Christ;  they  cannot  be  subjects  of  law, 
therefore  they  are  unconditionally  saved  in  Jesus  Christ. 
"  Where  there  is  no  law  there  is  no  trausgresaion." — 
Rom.  V,  15. 

From  this  it  will  be  seen,  that  although  they  are  sub- 
jects of  the  law,  they  are  not  transgressors  of  the  law  of 
God.  Hence,  not  guilty,  and  hence,  not  condemned,  and 
are  therefore  justified,  sanctified,  and  saved,  not  by  the 
law,  but  by  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ.  Hence,  Chris- 
tian mothers  need  not  look  upon  their  infants  as  little 
fiends,  and  rattlesnakes,  but  as  heirs  of  heaven  if  they 
pass  away  in  a  state  of  infancy.  Let  us  rejoice  that  this 
is  the  grand  doctrine  of  the  Bible  with  regard  to  infant 
salvation.  We  now  invite  you  to  further  proof,  Rom.  v, 
18,  "Therefore  as  by  the  offense  of  one,  judgment  camo 
upon  all  men  to  condemnation,  even  so  by  the  righteous- 
ness of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  to  justifica- 
tion of  life."  And  the  term  (men)  hence  is  applicable  to 
the  whole  race. 

Mr.  Summerbell's  Third  reply,  and  Twenty-seventh 
speech : 

I  am  more  and  more  pleased  with  my  brother's  exer- 
tions ;  he  is  at  the  laboring  oar,  but  he  toils  well.  It  is 
true,  he  is  suffering  somewhat  from  fever,  but  I  hope 
this  will  pass  off.  He  talks  about  courtesy,  and  says  he 
will  defend  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  against  my  attacks, 
as  though  I  had  attacked  it.  He  says  that  children  fell, 
but  were  not  condemned ;  that  they  were  lost,  but  not 
guilty  ;  subjects  of  law,  jet  without  law  ;  fallen,  but  not 
sinners  ;  not  condemned,  yet  redeemed.  This  is  very 
crooked  theology.  It  is  better  to  have  a  true  system, 
then  he  would  not  have  to  cross  his  track  so  often.  He 
says  that  infants  were  passive  yet  fell :  passive  yet  re- 
deemed ;  so  that  the  infants  have  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
My  brother  has  yet  to  prove  that  any  thing  was  ever 
redeemed  from  total  depravity.    My  argument  that  God 


898 


DISCUSSION  ON 


could  not  love  any  thing  that  was  totally  depraved,  my 
brother  has  not  answered,  and  can  not  answer.  He  says 
infants  were  passive  in  the  fall,  and  could  not  be  con- 
demned, because  they  had  not  sinned  ;  thus  God  had  to 
bring  in  the  atonement  as  a  kind  of  remedy  for  his  bad 
government.  God  had  placed  infants  where  they  would 
go  to  hell  innocently,  by  his  bad  arrangement ;  so  he  is 
obh'ged  to  provide  the  atonement  to  keep  them  out ! 

lie  answers  the  parables  by  saying  tliat  the  prodigal 
son  would  not  have  come  back  without  God's  grace  ;  as 
though  I  had  said  that  men  would  be  saved  without  the 
grace  of  God.  He  has  quoted  no  one  text  whicli  shows 
that  man  is  entirely  depraved  in  his  nature,  and  inclined 
to  evil,  and  that  continually,  so  that  he  can  not  think 
one  good  thought,  or  do  one  good  act,  or  put  forth  any 
good  exertion  in  the  right  way. 

My  friend  urges  that  he  holds  to  the  salvation  of  all 
children  ;  I  know  he  does,  but  I  challenge  him  to  prove 
it  by  his  system.  He  has  renounced  Calvinistic  and 
Presbyterian  theology,  and  repudiates  it ;  yet  he  loses  in 
that,  the  only  chance  of  saving  totally  depraved  children. 
The  Bible  does  not  say  that  children  are  saved  from  total 
depravity;  but,  "of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  Heaven." 

He  thinks  that  my  views  accord  with  Universal ists, 
because  I  deny  that  all  mankind  die  a  moral  death  in 
Adam — i.  became  dead  in  trespasses  and  in  sins  ;  but 
it  is  his  theory  that  agrees  with  Universalism.  They 
quote,  "  As  in  Adam  all  die  (morally),  even  so,  in 
Christ,  shall  all  be  made  alive and  thus  prove  their 
system  by  his  interpretation.  And  his  Creed  positively 
proves  Universal ivsm,  where  it  says,  "  The  offering  of 
Christ  once  made,  is  that  perfect  redemption,  propitiation, 
and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  both 
original  and  actual :  and  there  is  none  other  satisfaction 
for  sin  but  that  alone." — Art.  xx,  p.  87.  Now,  can  he 
think  of  any  other  sin  ?  Here,  then,  is  complete  redemp- 
tion, e\^en  for  him  who  sins  to  the  last  moment.  Those 
who  live  in  glass  houses  should  not  throw  stones. 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


899 


Tlie  true  doctrine  is,  that  as  in  Adam  all  go  down  to 
the  grave,  even  so  in  Christ,  all  will  have  a  resurrection  ; 
that  is,  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so,  in  Christ,  shall  all 
be  made  alive. 

What  was  his  argument,  that  the  workers  of  iniquity 
had  gone  contrary  to  nature  and  become  exceedingly 
wicked  ?  When  he  came  to  the  word  "  natural,"  he 
wished  to  stop,  but  being  under  rapid  headway,  was 
obliged  to  complete  the  sentence  ?  Without  natural 
affection!^''  said  he;  that  is,  they  were  very  wicked, 
being  without  natural  afiection ;  but  where  is  the  evil 
of  being  without  natural  afiection,  if  nature  be  totally 
depraved  ? 

What  did  he  mean  by  affirming  that,  "  mothers  did 
kill  their  children  in  heathen  countries  ;"  but  to  prove 
that  mothers  are  totally  depraved,  and  are  inclined  to 
kill  their  children,  inasmuch  as  they  have  been  guilty 
of  those  things  in  some  part  of  the  world '{  But  all  this 
cruelty  proceeds  from  human  religions  and  men-made 
Constitutions  and  Disciplines,  invented  by  priests,  who 
make  those  mothers  believe  that  God  requires  Uoodcmd 
suffering  to  appease  his  wrath  ;  and  those  mothers  do 
this,  not  from  inclination,  but  regarding  it  as  a  religious 
duty.  He  says  that  Adam  fell  entirely  from  the  grace 
of  God.  Thank  God  we  have  Bibles  which  teach  us 
difi'erently  ;  that  God  did  not  give  up  his  creatures,  the 
work  of  his  hands,  for  the  first  ofi'ense.  God's  loving 
kindness  followed  our  first  parents  after  the  fall,  and  the 
very  promise  of  a  Saviour,  was  the  best  proof  that 
Heaven  could  give,  that  man  had  not  lost  the  favour  of 
his  God.  Gocl  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  son.  This  loxe  preceded  the  gift,  and  was  the 
moving  cause  of  it. 

That  infants  are  not  sinners,  is  proved  from  the  very 
nature  of  things.  As  Paul  says,  Eom.  ix,  11,  ''The 
children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  good 
or  evil."  It  is  no  more  philosophic,  or  truthful,  to  say 
that  children  sinned  in  Adam,  than  in  Cain. 


400 


C>:me  nave  :: 


Sin  is  a  transsressio 
DO  law. 
aU,  tbi. 
We  read. 


?inned  all ; 
-  rat  on  farther ; 
-rdfr  done, 

i  out  the  blood ; 
-  -ere  were  able, 
..  ±e  Tover  of  Babel* 

''neology  precisely, 
.aw^  but  where  there  is 
^    '     -      _         . :  and  it  is  evident  to 
.aw,  and  hence  no  sin. 
Jlau::.  xix,  io,  ii,     liien  tliere  were  bronghr 
unto  him  little  children,  that  be  should  pnt  his  hands  on 
them,  and  pray ;  aii  aked  them.  But 

Jesus  said.  Suffer  11:  .  forbid  them  not; 

for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven not  that  those  in 
heaven  are  totally  depraved  I'  : f  re. 

Jesus  also  said,  "  Except  v  erted,  and  become 

as  little  children,  (:  ed.)  ve  shall  not 

enter  into  the  kic.  — Matt,  xviii,  3. 

rss  we  are  like 
e'  t  ye  become 
?.t  contin- 


But,  if  children 
them,  the  be^^e: 
totally  dep: 
nallv,  ve  c;. 

The' Bit 
sinned  anc 
onr  entire  i 
Godh: 
chapte 

"1  J 


e  aU 


die. 


,nged.    It  was  a  Jewish  error  which 
I  will  read  a  portion  of  Ezekiel, 

:be  LoKD  came  unto  me,"  saying, 
.:  ye  use  this  proverb  concerning 
ayiDg,  The  fatheis  have  eaten  sour 
*   *^ '    '  lire  set  on  edge  I 

TCid.  ye  shall  not  have 
v.;r        .  -  verb  in  Israel, 
s  are  mine;  as  the  soul  of  the  fa- 
al  of  the  son  is  mine:  the  soul  that 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


401 


5  But  if  a  man  be  just,  and  do  that  which  is  lawful 
and  right, 

6  And  hath  not  eaten  upon  the  mountains,  neither 
hath  lifted  up  his  eyes  to  the  idols  of  the  house  of 
Israel. 

8  *  *  Hath  executed  tnie  judgment  between  man 
and  man. 

9  Ilath  walked  in  my  statutes,  and  hath  kept  my 
judgments,  to  deal  truly ;  he  is  just,  he  shall  surely  live, 
saith  the  Lord  God. 

10  If  he  beget  a  son  tliat  is  a  robber,  a  shedder  of 
blood,  and  that  doeth  the  like  to  any  of  these  things, 

11  And  that  doeth  not  any  of  those  duties,    *    *  * 

12  Hath  oppressed  the  poor  and  needy,  hath  spoiled 
by  violence,  hath  not  restored  the  pledge,  and  hath  lifted 
np  his  eyes  to  the  idols;  hath  committed  abomination. 

13  Hath  given  forth  upon  usury,  and  hath  taken  in- 
crease: shall  he  then  live?  he  shall  not  live:  he  hath 
done  all  these  abominations  ;  he  shall  surely  die,  his 
blood  shall  be  upon  him. 

14  Xow,  lo,  if  he  beget  a  son  that  seeth  all  his  father's 
sins  which  he  hath  done,  and  considereth,  and  doeth  not 
such  like. 

*  ****** 

17  *  *  He  shall  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of  his  fa- 
ther, he  shall  surely  live. 

18  As  for  his  father,  because  he  cruelly  oppressed, 
spoiled  his  brother  by  violence,  and  did  that  which  is 
not  good  among  his  people,  lo,  even  he  shall  die  in  his 
iniquity. 

ID  Yet  say  ye.  Why  ?  doth  not  the  son  bear  the  ini- 
quity of  the  father  ?  Wiien  the  son  hath  done  that  which 
is  lawful  and  right,  and  hath  kept  all  my  statutes,  and 
hath  done  them,  he  shall  surely  live. 

20  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die.  The  son  shall 
not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father,  neither  shall  the  fatlier 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son:  the  righteousness  of  the 
S4 


402 


DISCUSSION  ON 


righteous  shall  be  upon  him,  and  the  wickedness  of  the 
wicked  shall  be  upon  hira. 

21  But  if  the  wicked  will  turn  from  all  his  sins  that 
he  hath  committed,  and  keep  all  my  statutes,  and  do  tliat 
which  is  lawful  and  right,  he  shall  surely  live,  he  shall 
not  die. 

22  All  his  transgressions  that  he  hath  committed,  they 
shall  not  be  mentioned  unto  him :  in  his  righteousness 
that  he  hath  done  he  shall  live. 

23  Have  I  any  pleasure  at  all  that  the  wicked  should 
die  ?  saith  the  Lord  God ;  and  not  that  he  should  return 
from  his  ways,  and  live  ? 

24:  But  when  the  righteous  turneth  away  from  his 
righteousness,  and  committeth  iniquity,  and  doeth  accord- 
ing to  all  the  abominations  that  the  wicked  man  doeth, 
shall  he  live  ?  All  his  righteousness  that  he  hath  done 
shall  not  be  mentioned:  in  his  trespass,  that  he  hath 
trespassed,  and  in  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  in  them 
shall  he  die. 

25  Yet  ye  say.  The  way  of  the  Lord  is  not  equal. 
Hear  now,  O  house  of  Israel,  Is  not  my  way  equal  ?  are 
not  your  ways  unequal  ? 

26  When  a  righteous  man  turneth  away  from  his 
righteousness,  and  committeth  iniquity,  and  dieth  in 
them  ;  for  his  iniquity  tliat  he  hath  clone,  shall  he  die. 

27  Again,  when  the  wicked  man  turneth  away  from  • 
his  wickedness  that  he  hath  committed,  and  doeth  that 
which  is  lawful  and  right,  he  shall  save  his  soul  alive. 

28  Because  he  considereth,  and  turneth  away  from  all 
his  transgressions  that  he  hath  committed,  he  shall  surely 
live,  he  shall  not  die. 

29  Yet  saith  the  house  of  Israel,  The  way  of  the  Lord 
is  not  ecpal.  O  house  of  Israel,  are  not  my  ways  equal? 
are  not  your  ways  unequal  ? 

30  Therefore  I  will  judge  you,  O  house  of  Israel,  every 
one  according  to  his  ways,  saith  the  Lord  God.  Kepent, 
and  turn  yourselves  from  all  your  transgressions  ;  so  ini- 
quity shall  not  be  your  ruin. 


HUMAN  DEPRAYITT. 


403 


31  Cast  away  from  you  all  your  transgressions,  where- 
by ye  haye  transgressed  ;  and  make  you  a  new  heart 
and  a  new  spirit:  lor  why  will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel? 

32  For  I  haye  no  pleasure  in  the  deatli  of  him  that 
dieth,  saith  the  Lord  God;  wherefore,  turn  yourselyes, 
and  liye  ye." 

Matt,  xyiii,  3,  Jesus'  blessing  little  children,  and  say- 
ing of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heayen,''  is  in  strict 
accordance  with  this. 

The  temporal  death  of  all  is  no  proof  of  total  deprayity, 
since  death  has  passed  upon  all,  eyen  upon  those  who  haye 
not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  ti'ansgression. 
They  were  depriyed  of  the  tree  of  life  in  the  garden,  so 
as  to  rise  from  this  sinful  world,  to  a  better  state  ;  for  as 
all  die  in  Adam  a  physical  death,  so  all  in  Christ  shall 
have  a  resuirection.  Our  common  language  is  opposed 
to  this  doctrine. 

We  say  that  a  cruel  person  acts  inhumanly ;  but  if 
human  nature  were  totally  deprayed,  they  would  act  most 
humanely,  when  they  acted  most  crv.elly. 

We  expect  love^  paternal,  filial  and  fraternal  affec- 
tion, eyen  of  the  unconyerted,  which  we  should  not.  if  they 
are  by  nature  inclined  to  eyil  only,  and  that  continually, 
as  my  brother's  creed  says. 

We  expect  respect  to  religion  in  the  unconyerted, 
which  would  be  the  blackest  hypocrisy,  if  they  were 
totally  deprayed,  and  inclined  to  eyil  continually. 

We  see  a  religious  feeling  manifest  in  every  nation, 
howeyer  heathen,  which  shows  that  they  are  not  totally 
deprayed. 

We  expect  yirtue  and  moral  worth  in  the  unconyerted, 
which  could  not  be,  if  they  were  inclined  to  eyil  only 
and  continually. 

The  Scriptures  give  no  such  meaning  to  the|Word  Na- 
ture, as  they  would  attach  to  it.  It  is  well  known  to 
those  familiar  with  the  Scriptures  that  nature  often  sig- 
nifies merely  birth,  nativity,  custom,  habit ;  and  not 
always  disposition,  instinct,  propensity.  So  in  Eph.  ii,  3, 


404 


riscussio?c  ox 


the  apostle  eays,  that  some  "were  by  nature  the  children 
of  wrath,"  using  the  Greek  \^-ovd,  p/tusei^  which  signifies 
disposition. 

James  i,  23,  speaks  of  a  man  beholding  his  natural  face 
in  a  glass ;  here  it  is  geneseos^  from  ginomai,  birth,  oi 
nativity.  But  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  nature  is 
spoken  of  as  good,  correct,  cfcc. 

Rom.  i.  :?6,  ''For  this  cause  God  gave  them  up  to 
vile  affections  against  nature  {phisiken):^  Here,  you 
see,  that  it  is  set  Ibrth  as  a  great  evil  for  God  to  give 
men  up  to  act  contrary  to  nature ;  but  my  brother  would 
count  it  a  great  blessing. 

1  Cor.  xi,  14,  "  Doth  not  even  nature  {fusos)  itself 
teach  you  that  if  a  man  have  long  liair.  it  is  a  shame 
unto  him  C  Here  nature,  though  the  word  might  signify 
birth  or  origin,  yet  barely  means  the  custom  or  practice 
of  the  country. 

Eom.  ii,  14,  "For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have 
not  the  law,  do  by  nature  {pJiusei)  the  things  con- 
tained in  the  law:  these  having  not  the  law,  are  a  law 
unto  themselves,  which  show  the  work  of  the  law  written 
in  their  hearts,*'  <fcc.  Thus,  as  Dr.  Macknight  testifies 
on  this  verse,  there  is  a  light  in  nature  itself,  which  is  a 
revelation  from  God  to  all  nations ;  so  that  the  mind  of 
man  is  made  to  harmonize  with  the  mind  of  God.  But 
how,  if  his  nature  were  totally  depraved,  could  it  har- 
monize with  the  mind  of  God  ?  or  how  could  he  do  by 
nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law  ?  Tlie  apostle 
here  supposes  that  there  exists  in  nature,  a  transcript  of 
the  law  of  God. 

Galatians  ii,  15,  "Who  are  Jews  by  nature,  {p>Jnisei) 
and  not  sinnei-s  of  the  Gentiles.'*  Here  nature  signifies 
birth  or  education ;  so  also  Eom.  xi,  16.  Jews  are  spoken 
of  as  the  natural,  {pJnisiaina  or  2^^iiSt?()  branches  of  the 
good  olive  tree  ;*■  but  how  could  they  be  thus  naturally, 
if  nature  be  totally  depraved  ? 

James  iii.  6,  "  The  tongue  is  said  to  be  an  unruly 
member,**  occ.    "  It  setteth  on  fire  the  whole  course  of 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


405 


nature,"  {geneseos^  race  or  descent) ;  yet  if  nature  were 
totally  depraved  it  would  not  need  to  be  kindled  into  a 
contlai2;ration. 

2  Tim.  iii,  3,  To  be  "  without  natural  affection,"  is 
ranked  among  the  very  greatest  evils  and  crimes,  show- 
ing that  nature  is  not  totally  depraved. 

Phil,  ii,  20,  Paul  said,  that  he  "sent  Timothy,  who 
would  naturally  {genesiiis)  care  for  the  churches  ;"  but 
this  could  not  be  if  nature  were  totally  depraved.  So  we 
find  that,  despite  of  human  dogmas,  the  preponderating 
testimony  from  the  Bible  is  favorable  to  nature.  And  why 
not?  Do  not  nature  and  revelation  emanate  from  the 
same  God  ?  Is  not  the  God  of  nature,  the  God  of  reve- 
lation ?  Sin  is  a  transgression  of  the  law  ;  but  the  de- 
pravity of  children,  inherited  through  the  flesh,  is  no 
transgression  of  theirs,  and  can  not  be  so  construed  as 
to  condemn  them ;  nor  so  magnified  as  to  make  their 
nature  totally  depraved ;  nor  so  guilty  as  to  sink  the 
innocent  spirit.  Neither  can  that  weakness  of  the  flesh 
be  fully  redeemed  by  a  spiritual  birth  ;  for  that  which  is 
born  of  spirit  is  spirit^  as  truly  as  that  born  of  flesh  is 
flesh.  (Jo.  iii,  6.)  This  weakness  or  depravity  of  the 
liesh  is  treated  at  large  by  Paul,  Rom.  vii,  18-25,  where 
he  says,  '*  I  know  that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,  dwell- 
eth  no  good  thing,"  and  speaks  of  a  "  law  in  his  mem- 
bers, which  wars  against  the  law  of  his  mind  ;"  and 
thanking  God  for  the  victory,  calls  it,  a  "keeping  under 
of  the  body ;"  rejoicing  in  the  hope  still  in  the  future, 
of  the  ''^  redemption  of  the  hody.'"'  Now  it  seems  to  me, 
that  if  saints  can  be  holy  and  yet  possess  this  infirmity 
of  the  flesh,  notwithstanding  their  conversion,  that  child-' 
ren  may  also ;  and  lohen,  and  lohere,  and  hoio,  saints 
will  be  relieved  of  this  infirmity  of  the  flesh,  children 
also  may  be,  and  that  will  be  when  they  receive  the 
resurrection  hody,  fashioned  like  unto  the  glorious  hody 
of  Christ.  Thanks  be  unto  God,  who  giveth  us  the  vic- 
tory through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  discrepancies 
in  the  system  of  total  depravity  are  glaring  every  way. 


406 


DISCUSSION  ON 


They  think  that  children  must  be  regenerated  to  remove 
this  depravity,  and  yet,  after  the  supposed  regeneration, 
there  is  found  precisely  the  same  disposition  ;  and  I  sug- 
gest, that  if  tfie  natural  temperament  of  the  child  proves 
it  totally  depraved,  that  same  temperament,  found  in 
older  (saints  ?)  must  prove  them  still  totally  depraved. 
And  if  original  corruption  renders  regeneration  neces- 
sary before  conversion,  that  same  original  corruption 
renders  regeneration  necessary  after  conversion.  But 
the  child  needs  it  not.  It,  when  dying  in  infancy,  is 
"redeemed  from  the  earth  —  redeemed  from  among 
men,"  Rev.  xiv,  3,  4,  and  receives  a  spiritual,  immortal 
body,  raised  in  glory,  fashioned  like  unto  the  glorious 
body  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  my  brother  thinks  nothing 
can  be  redeemed  unless  it  be  totally  lost — that  the  gold 
must  be  dross,  or  it  can  not  be  refined ;  as  well  might  we 
say  that  we  must  be  annihilated,  or  we  cannot  be  saved. 
Blessed  be  God,  that  for  all,  there  is  prepared  the  re- 
demption which  they  need. 

Mr.  Flood's  Fourth  address,  and  Twenty-eighth  speech  : 
I  now  proceed  with  the  argument.  I  invite  your 
attention  to  Is.  i,  5,  6,  "  The  whole  head  is  sick,  and  the 
whole  heart  faint ;  from  the  sole  of  the  foot,  even  unto 
the  head,  there  is  no  soundness  in  it ;  but  wounds,  and 
bruises,  and  putrefying  sores."  I  will  read  Clarke's 
Commentary  on  this  passage. 

"  Why  should  ye  be  stricken  any  more,  ye  will  revolt 
more  and  more  ;  the  whole  head  is  sick,  and  the  whole 
heart  faint;  from  the  sole  of  the  foot  even  unto  the 
liead  there  is  no  soundness  in  it,  but  wounds  and  bruises 
and  putrefying  sores  ;  they  have  not  been  closed,  neither 
bound  up,  neither  mollified  with  ointment." 

"There  are  some  who  explain  it  thus.  Upon  what  limb 
shall  ye  be  smitten  if  you  have  defection,  for  already  for 
your  sins  have  you  been  smitten  upon  all  of  them,  so 
that  there  is  not  to  be  found  in  you  a  whole  limb,  on 
w^hich  you  can  be  smitten  ;  which  agrees  with  what  fol- 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITT. 


40T 


lows — from  the  sole  of  the  foot,  even  to  the  head,  there 
is  no  soundness  in  him." 

We  remark,  that  no  stronger  or  emphatical  language 
could  be  employed,  than  is  here  employed  to  express  the 
depravity  of  human  nature;  when  the  whole  head  is 
sick,  there  must  follow  necessarily,  an  affection  of  the 
whole  system.  The  term  Jieart  is  frequently  used  to  rep- 
resent affections.  Here  the  Holy  Gliost  takes  up  its 
residence,  when  it  is  made  a  temple  fit  to  dwell  in,  but 
when  corrupt  and  polluted,  the  affections,  as  well  as  the 
body — the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  polluted.  ''From 
the  sole  of  the  foot,  even  unto  the  head,  there  is  no 
soundness  in  it ;  but  wounds,  and  bruises,  and  putrefying 
sores;  they  have  not  been  closed,  nor  bound  up,  nor  mol- 
lified with  ointment."  Here  is  doubtless,  a  reference  to 
sores  which  are  filled  with  proud  flesh.  We  could  not 
conceive  of  anythiug  more  expressive  of  absolute  cor- 
ruption ;  hence,  we  say,  it  is  entirely  corrupt  in  all  its 
parts — entirely  depraved.  My  friend  can  find  it  in  Web- 
ster. Hence,  my  brother's  argument  upon  this  was  a 
waste  of  words.  There  is  no  soundness  in  it.  2sow  my 
friend  assumes  that  there  is  some  soundness  somewhere. 
He  knew  a  man  somewhere,  out  of  the  Church,  who  was 
highly  respected  for  his  integrity  and  veracity.  How 
far  that  man,  as  well  as  thousands  of  others,  are  under 
restraining  grace,  no  one  can  tell ;  certainly  it  is  not  con- 
fined to  the  Church  of  God.  Ail  good  whatever,  is  from 
God,  for  he  is  the  source  of  all  moral  excellence.  I 
assume  the  position,  that  the  entirely  depraved,  when 
called  into  action,  must  act  in  accordance  with  their  nature; 
hence,  the  salv^ation  of  every  individual  who  has  violated 
the  law,  has  its  foundation  in  God's  grace,  and  my  brother 
has  utterly  and  signally  failed  to  answer  it.  But  if  this 
man  was  a  man  of  veracity,  he  was  also  a  gentleman,  and 
hence  would  not  call  his  opponent  a  liar.  I  suppose  that 
he  will  get  up  and  state  to  this  audience  that  he  was 
mad.  I  present  my  friend  as  a  living  evidence  of  entire 
depravity,  after  he  could  laugh  at  the  audience,  and 


408 


DISCUSSION  ON 


whisper  in  my  ear  that  I  had  lied  ;  when  in  tlie  days  of 
my  youth,  such  a  terra  would  have  certainly  been  very 
trying  to  poor,  fallen  human  nature,  and  it  would  still  be 
so,  but  for  a  sense  of  duty  —  that  I  was  a  Christian 
minister,  and  that  I  had  a  ministerial  character,  however 
humble,  and  that  I  did  not  come  to  this  place  to  make  a 
character,  and  to  receive  a  standing  at  the  hand  of  my 
opponent  for  truth  and  veracity.  I  am  speaking  to  my 
brother,  and  I  speak  not  boastingl)\  The  Records  of  the 
Ohio  Annual  Confjrence  will  tell  what  is,  and  what  has 
been,  the  standing  of  J.  M.  Flood ;  he  has  been  connected 
with  that  body  dui'ing  fourteen  years,  and  by  their  un- 
solicited suffrages  been  called  to  hll  every  office  in  it,  and 
has  he  received  this  expression  of  confidence  from  his 
brethren — then  to  be  here  vulgarly  called  a  liar! 

He  has  demonstrated,  in  the  hearing  of  this  audience, 
that  human  nature  is  entirely  depraved,  and  I  offer  a 
prayer  here,  that  in  the  case  of  my  brother,  this  bent  of 
I'allen  human  nature  may  be  restored,  and  may  be  for- 
given in  the  end.  My  friend  sets  out  with  the  statement, 
that  if  infants  are  totallj^  depraved,  then  they  would 
necessarily  have  gone  to  hell,  unless  Christ  had  redeemed 
them.  I  will  ask  my  brother  a  question  :  If  Christ  had 
not  made  atonement  for  man,  and  the  human  race  had 
been  permitted  to  be  propagated,  whether  Adam  and  his 
posterity  would  not  have  gone  to  hell — if  there  be  a  hell, 
and  such  a  progeny  could  have  been  propagated — if  such 
would  not  have  been  their  fate  ?  The  atonement  of 
Christ  had  to  be  made  to  save  infants  ;  and  to  save  men 
it  was  made  to  meet  the  case  of  infants,  for  it  was  not 
possible  that  God  could  see  fit  to  damn  them.  If  God 
had  not  seen  fit  to  redeem  man,  he  would  have  executed 
condemnation  upon  the  first  transgressors.  1  could  sooner 
cease  to  worship  the  Almighty,  than  believe  that  he 
could  damn  infants.  God  has  made  an  unconditional 
redemption — it  saves  and  sanctifies  through  Jesus  Christ, 
and  by  the  power  of  his  grace — saves,  sanctifies,  and  glo- 
rifies it  in  heaven.    If  it  dies  in  a  state  of  infancy,  it  is 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITT. 


409 


not  saved  independently  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  tlie 
atonement  of  Christ.  If  it  b;3  so,  I  assert  its  song  will 
not  be  united  with  the  song  of  its  parents ;  and  1  turn 
airaiu  to  those  mothers,  whose  children  have  died  and 
left  them  in  their  infancy  ;  could  you  conceive  that  that 
voice  would  be  possessed  of  tiiat  delight  and  charm,  if 
you  supposed  your  infant  child  were  denied  the  privilege 
of  joining  the  song  of  the  redeemed,  "unto  Him  who 
has  loved  us,  and  washed  us,"  &c  ?  It  would  be  touching 
a  note  infinitely  below  that  which  is  touched  by  the 
redeemed  of  Jesus  Christ.  My  opponent  admits,  that 
infants  need  something,  but  he  does  not  state,  however, 
what  it  is.  If  they  need  something,  I  should  like  to 
know  what  it  is,  and  what  need  is  supplied  in  Jesus 
Christ.  I  assume,  that  they  need  every  thing,  and  what- 
ever that  every  thing  implies,  that  tliey  have  it,  uncon- 
ditionally, through  the  efficacy  of  the  atonement  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Overset  it,  if  you  will,  sir.  Does 
my  opponent  argue,  to  an  issue  made  by  me  ?  Xo  !  he 
argues  to  an  issue  made  by  himself — a  false  issue — and 
this  is  the  only  one  he  is  willing  to  meet.  There  has  not 
been  a  single  hour,  from  the  conunencement  of  this 
discussion,  in  which  the  way  has  not  seemed  clearer  to 
my  view,  and  the  very  mists  that  my  friend  has  made, 
have  been  dissipated.  I  am  happy,  to  be  able  to  say, 
toward  the  close  of  this  discussion,  that  my  spirit  feels 
as  free,  at  this  hour,  as  the  bird  of  paradise.  I  do  not 
know  when  I  have  felt  less  restriction,  in  the  advocacy 
of  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Gospel.  My  oppo 
nent  charges  me  with  saying,  that  human  nature  is 
totally  depraved.  I  have  not  said  so  once.  I  use  the 
phrase,  entirely  depraved,  and  submit  to  the  authority  of 
Webster;  and  I  say,  that  we  inherit  an  entirely  depraved 
nature,  but  b\*  grace  we  inherit  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ, 
and  if  we  die  in  infancy,  we  inherit  salvation,  being  in  a 
passive  state.  He  thinks,  parents  would  love  their  child- 
ren less,  if  they  thought  they  inherited  an  entirely 
depraved  nature  ;  but  do  not  parents  find  it  necessary  to 
35 


410 


DISCUSSION  ON 


exercise  restraints  over  the  dispositions  of  their  children, 
and  their  tendency  to  evil  ?  How  many  parents  have 
seen  their  sons  and  daughters  running  in  the  path  of 
depravity  and  wretchedness  ?  and  how  many  parents 
have  been  thus  brought  to  the  grave,  with  sorrow  ?  And 
■when  this  has  not  been  the  case,  it  is  by  the  restraining 
influence  of  Clu'ist.  and  not  because  their  dispositions  are 
not  inclined  to  evil,  and  that  continually. 

Again,  my  brother  Cjuotes  the  passage  respecting  sour 
grapes,  and  several  others,  which  relate  to  the  fact,  that 
children  should  not  be  held  responsible  for  the  sins  of 
the  parents.  He  says,  I  say,  that  when  we  are  required 
to  put  away  the  sins  of  our  father,  we  can  not  do  it. 
I  hold,  that  of  ourselves  we  can  do  nothing,  and  our 
sufficiency  is  of  God.  "  I  can  do  all  things,  through  Jesus 
Christ,  which  strengtheneth  me."  So  when  the  son  is 
commanded  to  avoid  the  sins  of  his  father,  it  is  because 
the  grace  of  Jesus  Christ  is  sufficient  for  him,  through 
the  ability  which  Christ  Jesus  has  afforded  him,  and  that 
he  ought  to  put  them  away  by  tlie  grace  of  Christ.  We 
now  invite  attention  to  the  reading  of  Clarke,  on  the 
passage,  ^'  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things  and  des- 
perately wicked." 

Jeremiah,  chap,  xvii,  note  on  verse  9th,  (the  heart  is 
deceitful).  "The  heart  is  supplanting — tortuous — full  of 
windings — insidious — lying  ever  at  the  catch — striving 
to  avail  itself  of  eveiy  favoring  circumstance  to  gratify 
its  propensities  to  pride,  ambition,  evil  desire,  and  cor- 
ruption of  all  kinds." 

That  looks  very  much  like  entire  depravity. 

Mr.  Summerbell's  Fourth  reply,  and  Twenty-eighth 
speech. 

My  friend  wants  me  to  prove,  that  the  sinner  can  put 
away  sin  without  grace;  but  I  have  taken  no  such 
position,  and,  therefore,  there  is  no  necessity  of  my  prov- 
ing it.  He  says  I  admitted,  that  he  drew  the  wind 
from  my  sails.  Did  If  I  did  not  know  that  I  admit- 
ted any  such  thing.    On  the  nature  of  depravity,  he 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


411 


appeals  to  Webster,  but  Webster  cannot  help  him,  for 
Webster  is  not  illogical.  He  sajs  the  heart  and  head, 
Isaiah  i,  6,  signitV  the  whole  man  —  the  whole  nervous 
system.  If  he  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  the  text,  he 
will  find  it  refers  not  to  a  man^  but  to  a  nation^  and  is 
not  a  physical,  but  a  political  corruption.  Thus  Clarke 
comments:  ''The  whole  head  is  sick,  the  king  and  priest 
are  equally  gone  away  from  truth  and  righteousness." 
Do  you  not  see,  that  my  brother  gave  a  wrong  explana- 
tion of  the  text  ?    His  appeal  to  Clarke  has  quite  failed. 

On  a  careful  examination  of  the  texts  that  have  been 
quoted  by  my  brother,  I  find  that  none  of  them  speak  of 
man's  nature,  but  of  his  actual  transgression.  My  bro- 
ther quoted  Paul,  who  said :  "  The  flesh  lusteth  against 
the  spirit,"  showing  that  there  is  some  conservative  good 
in  man,  notwithstanding  the  tendency  of  the  flesh  to  evil. 

Romans  i,  26,  shows  that  these  vile  afiections  were 
against  nature.  If  you  commit  sin,  you  sin  against  your 
own  conscience,  and  against  your  God ;  against  all  the 
good  in  heaven,  and  against  yourself  Sin  disturbs  the 
mind,  and  makes  us  feel  bad,  very  bad — and  somebody 
here  feels  very  had  noio. 

My  brother  has  constantly  endeavored  to  confound  the 
general  and  extreme  depravity  of  man,  with  the  ques- 
tion, as  though  I  denied  the  sinfulness  of  our  race.  I 
believe  that  as  firmly  as  he ;  and  that  you  may  have  a 
view  of  it,  showing  that  the  Bible  does  not  picture  it  in 
too  vivid  colors,  let  me  read  you  a  passage  from  Dick's 
works.  I  think  that  my  brother  could  hardly  desire  a 
darker  picture. 

The  following  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  principal 
punishments  that  have  heen  adopted  oy  men,  in  dif- 
ferent coimtries^  for  tormenting  and  destroying  each 
other.  Capital  punishment. — Beheading,  strangling, 
crucifixion,  drowning,  burning,  roasting,  hanging  by  the 
neck,  the  arm,  or  the  leg  ;  starving,  sawing,  exposing  to 
wild  beasts,  rending  asunder  by  horses  drawing  opposite 
ways,  shooting,  burying  alive,  blowing  from  the  mouth 


412 


DISCUSSION  ON 


of  a  cannon,  compulsory  deprivation  of  sleep,  rolling  on 
a  barrel  stuck  with  nails,  cutting  to  pieces,  banging  by 
the  ribs,  poisoning,  pressing  slowly  to  death,  by  a  weight 
laid  on  the  breast ;  casting  headlong  from  a  rock,  tearing 
out  the  bowels,  pulling  to  pieces  with  red  hot  pinchers, 
stretching  on  the  rack,  breaking  on  the  wheel,  impaling, 
flaying  alive,  cutting  out  the  heart,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.  Pion- 
ishments  short  of  deaths  have  been  such  as  the  follow- 
ing: Fine,  pillory,  imprisonment,  compulsory  labor  at  the 
mines,  galleys,  highways,  or  correction  house  ;  whipping, 
bastinadoing,  mutilation,  by  cutting  away  the  ears,  the 
nose,  the  breasts  of  women,  the  tongue,  the  foot,  the 
hand,  squeezing  the  marrow  from  the  bones,  with  screws 
or  wedges,  castration,  putting  out  the  eyes,  banishment, 
running  the  gauntlet,  drumming,  shaving  off  tlie  hair, 
burning  on  the  hand  or  forehead,  and  many  others  of  a 
similar  nature." — Dick's  Philosophy  of  Keligion,  Yol.  i, 
page  12G. 

I  now  call  your  attention  again,  to  some  Scriptural  and 
philosophical  arguments,  against  the  doctrine  of  the  total 
depravity  of  our  nature,  when  born  into  the  world. 

1.  De'ut.  ix,  12,  and  xxxii.  5,  Moses  says  that  some 
had  "corrupted  themselves but  this  they  could  not  have 
done,  if  they  were  born  totally  depraved.  Ec.  vii,  29, 
says  that  "  God  made  man  upright ;  but  they  have  sought 
out  many  inventions." 

2.  Gen.  v,  22,  Enoch,  who  "  walked  with  God,"  could 
not  have  been  totally  depraved. 

3.  John  the  Baptist,  miraculously  inspired  from  the 
very  beginning  of  his  existence,  could  not  have  been 
totally  depraved. 

4.  Is.  i,  18,  If  our  reason  were  totally  depraved,  God 
would  not  say:  "  Come,  let  us  reason  together." 

5.  If  we  were  totally  depraved,  good  could  not  be  ex- 
pected, nor  evil  blamed,  since  all  would  be  inclined 
to  evil  only,  and  continually ;  and  hence,  could  no 
more  be  blamed,  than  the  brutes  which  act  out  their 
nature. 


HUMAN  DEPRATITT. 


413 


As  the  poet  says : 

"  Let  dogs  delight  to  bark  and  bite. 

For  God  has  made  tliein  so  ; 
Let  bears  and  lions  growl  and  fight. 

For  'tis  their  nature  too  ; 
But  children,  you  should  never  let 

Such  angry  passions  rise  ; 
Tour  little  hands  were  never  made 

To  tear  each  other's  eyes." 

But  if  children  are  born  totally  depraved,  and  inclined 
to  evil,  and  that  continually,  this  is  just  as  true  of  them^ 
as  of  hears  and  lions. 

6.  The  principal  texts  depended  upon  to  support  this 
doctrine,  are  home-made  Scriptures,  such  as : 

i^/r^^,  Man  is  prone  to  evil,  as  the  sparks  fly  up- 
ward." The  correct  reading  is,  Job.  v,  7,  ^*  Man  is  born 
to  trouble,  as  the  sparks  lly  upward." 

Second^  Christ  was  made  in  all  points  as  we  are, 
sin  excepted."  The  correct  readiny  is,  Heb.  iv,  14, 
"  was  in  all  points  tempted  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin." 

7.  1  Cor.  ii,  14.  ''The  natural  man  receiveth  not  of 
the  spirit  of  God."  Natural  man,  here,  signifies  the 
animal  man^  as  testified  by  Macknight. 

8.  Nature  is  good!  and  in  peace  and  love,  as  a  beau- 
tiful river,  it  would  ever  flow  onward  toward  the  great 
ocean  of  unbroken  harmony  ;  but  sin  rises  to  obstruct  its 
passage,  by  opposing  obstacles,  which  war  on  its  peace, 
and  thus  its  progress  is  disturbed,  as  the  even  flowing 
river,  by  the  uneven  rocky  bed  of  the  channel.  Thus  the 
harmony  of  nature  is  destroyed  by  sin,  and  remorse  takes 
the  place  of  sweet  peace,  showing  sin  to  be  a  violation 
of  our  nature. 

9.  Nature  is  Tiealing^  and  soothing.  Nature  heals 
the  sore;  heals  the  bruise;  knits  together  the  broken 
bone.  Nature  very  often  heals  in  spite  of  the  physician. 
Nature  is  good. 

10.  Sin^  in  destroying  man,  proves  itself  contrary  to 
his  nature. 

11.  My  brother  thinks  that  man's  sinning,  is  a  proof 
of  total  depravity.  I  challenge  my  brother  to  tell  us  how 


414 


DISCUSSION  ON 


men  would  act,  were  God  to  produce  a  new  race  not 
depraved,  and  place  them  in  like  circumstances  with  us. 

12.  The  beautiful  world  we  live  in,  with  its  balmy  air, 
and  gushing  fountains,  and  crystal  streams,  and  blooming 
forests,  and  diamond  jetted  sky,  all  go  to  prove  that 
man  is  not,  by  nature,  totally  depraved,  else  God  would 
have  given  him  a  world  more  appropriate. 

13.  It  is  a  cruel  theology  which  has  taken  the  advan- 
tage of  the  child's  innocence,  to  represent  it  as  totally 
depraved. 

14.  Man's  physical  organization,  shows  that  he  is  not 
born  totally  depraved.  AVere  he  born  thus,  then  he  would 
be  born  with  teeth,  or  tusls,  instead  of  teeth ;  and  clav:s, 
instead  of  hands,  and  instead  of  walking  'uprigJd  in  the 
image  of  God.  he  would  go  on  all-fours. 

15.  The  poet  has  well  said: 

"  Ifature  aflFords,  at  least,  a  glimmering  light. 
The  lines,  tho'  touched  but  faintly,  are  drawn  right." 

16.  Were  nature  totally  depraved,  then  we  would 
naturally  Aaie  every  thing  lovely^  and  love  every  hateful 
thing' ;  but  instead  of  this,  we  love  virtue.  Virtue  is  the 
first,  and  sin  is  a  contrivance  which  comes  afterward. 

17.  My  brother's  method  of  preaching,  in  blaming  the 
sinner  for  not  repenting,  shows  that  he  does  not  regard 
him  as  totally  depraved ;  for  if  he  were,  and  inclined  to 
evil  only,  and  that  contimialJy^v^Q  might  just  as  well  call 
upon  the  sparks  to  fly  downward,  or  water  to  run  up  hill. 
God's  dealing  with  man  at  first,  in  promising  him  a 
Saviour,  is  contrary  to  the  supposition,  that  man  was 
totally  depmved, 

IS.  Mankind  living  as  social  beings,  in  families,  soci- 
eties, cities,  and  nations,  is  proof  of  the  absence  of  total 
depravity,  and  that  the  poet's  words  are  true : 

"  Two  principles  in  human  nature  reign, 
Self-love  to  urge,  and  reason  to  restrain.'' 

19.  Legislators  —  unregenerate  men — such  as  Jefi*er- 
60D,  Franklin,  Clay,  and  others,  by  their  enactment  of 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


415 


laws  to  promote  the  good  of  the  human  family — by 
discountenancing  crime,  show  that  they  are  not  totally 
depraved,  and  inclined  to  evil  only,  and  that  continually: 
else  they  would  make  laws  that  we  should  lie,  and 
swear,  and  murder,  and  steal. 

20.  Fathers  abiding  with  their  families,  and  toiling 
for  their  good,  day  by  day,  show  that  they  are  not  totally 
depraved,  and  inclined  only  to  evil,  and  that  continually. 
Mothers  watching  over  their  children  —  ah !  can  the 
mother  look  at  her  smiling  babe,  and  say,  I  believe  that 
it  is  totally  depraved  ?  Mothers,  instead  of  watching 
over,  would  slay  their  children,  if  those  mothers  were 
totally  depraved. 

21.  We  object  to  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  as 
calculated  to  lessen  the  love  of  parents  for  their  children; 
for  if  parents  really  believed  this  doctrine,  they  would  be 
forced  to  regard  their  children  as  little  fiends  or  serpents, 
and  not  as  innocent — as  young  angels  to  be  trained  for 
glory. 

22.  It  never  can  be  reconciled  with  the  fact,  that  God 
so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  might  not  perish,  &c. 
For  if  we  are  all  by  nature  totally  depraved,  there  is 
nothing  to  love ;  all  is  totally  depraved,  nothing  good, 
nothing  lovely,  and  we  do  not  believe  that  God  could 
love  sin,  love  corruption — love  total  depravity. 

23.  1  have  sometimes  thought,  that  if  no  redemption 
were  provided  for  fallen  angels — though  I  speak  respect- 
fully of  the  opinions  of  some  who  suppose  that  such 
redemption  has  been  provided — it  was  because  they 
became  totally  depraved. 

24.  If  we  were  totally  depraved,  and  inclined  to  evil 
only,  and  that  continually,  this  congregation  would  not 
sit  quiet  a  moment,  but  rise,  with  cursing  and  swearing 
upon  their  lips,  and  fall  to,  to  destroying,  and  devouring 
each  other  immediately. 

25.  If  we  were  totally  depraved  when  born,  we 
could  not  go  astray  as  soon  as  born,  nor  could  the 


416 


DISCUSSION  ON 


wicked  wax  worse  and  worse,  if  totally  deprav^cd  in  the 
start. 

26.  The  circiuiistance  of  the  Ninevites  docs  not  show 
total  depravity,  for  Clirist  says,  that  *'  they  were  not  as 
bad  as  those  who  rejected  the  Gospel." — Matt,  xii,  41. 

27.  The  Sodomites  were  not  totally  depraved,  for 
Christ  plainly  shows,  that  they  were  better  than  the 
wicked  Jews. 

28.  The  Samaritans  were  not  totally  depraved,  for 
God  says,  that  the  Jews  were  more  abominable  than 
they,  and  that  they  were  more  righteous  than  the  Jews. 
Ezek.  xvi,  52,  53." 

29.  If  all  were  totally  depraved,  then  there  could  be 
found  no  perfect  Job,  (i,  1.) — no  good  Samaritan— no 
Israelite  in  whom  is  no  guile. — John  i,  47. 

30.  Being  dead  in  trespasses  and  sin  does  not  prove 
that  we  are  totally  depraved,  any  more  than  to  be  dead 
to  sin  proves  that  we  are  perfect  and  infallible.  Except 
a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  remaineth 
alone,  &c. ;  though  it  die,  it  is  fiot  entirely  corrupt,  but 
still  possesses  a  germ  of  life.  So,  also,  Jesus  says,  "  The 
hour  is  coming,  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the 
voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  they  that  hear  shall  live." 
John  v,  25.  And  that  this  is  a  moral  resurrection,  is 
proved  by  the  following  verse  :  '*  Marvel  not  at  this,  for 
the  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  their 
graves  shall  hear  his  voice  and  come  forth  ;  they  that 
have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  they 
that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  damna- 
tion." 

31.  That  mankind  are  depraved— very  depraved — 
there  is  no  controversy  between  my  brother  and  me.  I 
believe  in.  the  general,  universal  depravity  of  our  race, 
as  fully  as  he. 

32.  "The  difference  is,  that  he  thinks  that  this  is  a 
total  depravity  of  our  nature,  inherited  by  natural  gene- 
ration from  Adam  ;  while  /  think,  that  we  destroy  our- 
selves by  our  own  sins. 


HUMAN  DEPRATITY. 


417 


Mr.  Flood's  closing  address  and  Twenty-ninth  speech : 
This  is  my  last  speech  on  this  subject.  Mr.  Summer- 
bell  quotes  one  or  two  authorities,  which  do  not  affect 
the  question  of  moral  depravity;  the  opinion  of  a  man 
does  not  influence  or  affect  the  question  of  total  depravity. 
I  refer  you  to  Clarke,  Benson,  and  Coke,  {i)  as  evidence 
that  man,  in  his  natural  stale,  in  his  fallen  condition,  is 
not  capable  of  discernment. 

My  brother  inquires  of  me,  if  God  should  make  or 
create  another  class  of  beings,  similar  to  the  present  race, 
although  not  totally  depraved,  wherein  they  would  differ, 
in  their  moral  conduct,  from  us  ?  Since  he  has  no  mate- 
rial, wherewith  to  answer  eight  leading  propositions, 
which  I  have  brought  forward,  it  is  very  convenient  to 
bring  this  novel  proposition  forward,  at  this  advanced 
stage  of  the  discussion.    I  recollect  a  quotation : 

"Vain  man,  go  teach  Eternal  "Wisdom  how  to  rule. 
Then  drop  into  thyself,  and  be  a  Fool." 

I  should  consider  myself  a  fool,  if  I  attempted  to  answer 
all  the  queries  of  my  friend  ;  I  might,  however,  quote 
Dr.  Young:  "Able  to  stand,  though  free  to  fall."  From 
my  brother's  remarks,  on  the  sweetness  of  infancy,  I 
judge,  he  must  be  a  father.  I  felt,  as  he  gave  expression 
to  those  truths,  a  oneness  of  sentiment  with  him,  and 
visions  of  lovely  infants  perched  upon  the  bowers  of 
paradise  were  presented  to  my  mJnd  ;  and  I  thank  God, 
that  they  have  a  part  in  Him  who  hath  loved  iis,  and 
"washed  us  in  his  own  blood  I  There  is  certainly  some- 
thing very  delightful,  in  the  contemplation  of  tlie  love- 
liness of  infancy,  and  though,  by  natural  generation,  they 
inherit  a  depraved  nature,  from  their  fountain-head  being 
depraved,  yet  they  inherit  the  redeeming  graces  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  by  the  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ,  through 
his  merit,  and  thus  they  are  heii-s  to  an  immortal 
destiny. 

My  brother  insists  on  my  saving  children  in  a  state  of 
entire  depravity !    How  my  good  friend  could  have 


418 


DISCUSSION  ON 


drawn  this  conclusion  from  ray  position.  I  can  not  tell ; 
save  them  in  their  sins  I  I  have  assumed  from  the  first, 
that  the  child  is  not  a  sinner.  "Where  there  is  no  law, 
there  is  no  transgression.  I  assume,  that  infants  are  not 
saved  in  their  depravity,  but  saved  from  all  its  conse- 
quences and  influences.  There  is  no  sinning  in  infancy, 
positively ;  infants  stand  in  a  justified  relation.  My 
opponent  says,  if  this  be  so.  thus  it  must  be  with  those 
who  have  come  to  riper  years.  I  understand  justification 
to  be  a  work  done  for  us,  by  virtue  of  what  Christ  hath 
done  for  us;  it  is  a  forensic,  or  legal  term.  We  are 
regenerated  by  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  hence, 
the  term,  **  born  of  God,*'  **  born  again,*'  6zc.  All  of 
these  expressions  signity  a  radical,  or  thorough  change ; 
they  are  used  in  a  high  and  holy  sense,  to  represent  the 
©Iteration  of  the  grace  within  us.  by  which  we  are  fitted 
for  a  jjlace  in  heaven. 

Xow,  I  admit  that  infants  share  all  the  benefits  of 
Christ's  redemption  ;  but  they  are  not  subject  to  any  law, 
because  they  have  not  the  capacity  to  be  so.  I  am 
pleased,  that  my  brother  should  feel  so  good  a  spirit, 
while  with  me.    Cultivate  this  friendly  feeling. 

But  all  the  propositions  remain  unscathed,  unmoved ; 
they  have  come  out  without  even  so  much  as  the  smell 
of  fire  upon  their  garments  I  If  we  should  be  found 
nearer  togetlier,  my  brother  will  be  found  nearer  to  me  ; 
for  I  want  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  there  has 
been  no  approach  on  my  piirt.  I  assure  you,  that  it 
would  be  much  more  cheering  to  my  heart,  to  carry  away 
pleasanter  feeling,  than  the  noise  and  confusion  of  a 
former  evening,  were  calculated  to  produce. 

1  have  submitted  eight  different  propositions  : 

First.  Tiiat  man,  in  his  creation,  was  made  upright,  and 
this  I  sustained  by  a  number  of  texts. 

Second.  That  man  has  fallen  into  sin  and  ruin. 

Third.  That  all  men,  in  their  fallen  condition,  are 
morally  depraved. 

Fourth.  That  human  natme,  in  its  fallen  condition,  is 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


419 


entirely  depraved ;  which  I  supported  by  many  texts 
and  direct  proofs. 

Fifth.  That  this  depravity  is  manifested  in  various 
ways  ;  as, 

1.  In  a  spirit  of  opposition  and  hatred  to  God. 

2.  By  acts  of  disobedience  and  insubordination. 

3.  It  is  seen  in  indifference  to  God's  authority,  and 
deeds  of  darkness. 

4.  It  is  shown  in  acts  of  base  ingratitude  and  great 
cruelty. 

5.  It  is  developed  in  deceit  and  hypocrisy. 

Sixth.  Tliat  persons  are  only  responsible  lor  actual 
sins — sins  of  their  own,  not  of  others. 

We  noticed  in  this  connection,  that  this  inclination  to 
evil  is  early  manifested  in  the  life  of  the  wicked. 

Then,  we  drew  some  of  the  consequences  necessarily 
resulting  from  the  doctrine  of  partial  depravity : 

1.  If  any  part  of  man  is  not  depraved,  that  part 
stands  in  no  need  of  redemption,  and  need  not  be 
redeemed. 

2.  If  that  part  of  man's  nature  that  is  not  depraved, 
obtains  heaven,  it  obtains  it  of  right,  and  not  by  the 
atonement  of  Jesus  Christ.  This,  you  will  remember, 
was  sustained  by  evidence,  and  not  a  single  argument 
has  been  brought  forward,  that  was  not  a  natural 
sequence. 

Our  seventh  proposition,  introduced  some  further 
Scripture  evidence,  sustaining  the  doctrine  of  man's 
entire  depravity ;  and  we  also  quoted  Dr.  Clarke  on  the 
subject. 

Eighth.  The  relation  of  infants,  to  the  law,  is  not  the 
relation  sustained  by  actual  transgressors,  though  they 
inherit,  by  natural  generation,  an  entirely  depraved 
nature,  as  the  progeny  of  an  entirely  depraved  parent- 
age;  yet  infants  are  passive  in  the  fall,  and  passive  in 
the  redemption  by  Christ.  They  can  not  possibly  be  the 
subjects  of  the  law,  therefore,  they  are  unconditionally 
saved  in  Jesus  Christ.    In  proof  of  this,  I  quoted  Rom. 


420 


DISCUSSION  ON 


iv,  15,  and  v,  13-18,  to  sliow  that  infants  obtain  salva- 
tion upon  tlie  ground  of  Christ's  atonement. 

I  have  now  presented  to  you  the  oround  that  has  been 
occupied  in  sui)port  of  these  propositions,  which  in  every 
particuUir  are  distinct  and  conclusive;  and  I  shall  close 
this  argument  by  saying,  "  lie  reckoned  all  under  sin 
that  lie  might  have  mercy  upon  all;"  with  reference  to 
those  in  the  condition  of  infancy  it  is  passive ;  to  those 
who  have  become  actual  sinners,  it  is  upon  the  condition 
of  repentance  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "lie 
that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life;  and  he 
that  belie veth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life,  but  the 
wrath  of  God  abideth  in  him." — John  iii,  36.  We  have 
here  the  testimony  that  faith  is  made  the  condition  of 
everlasting  life.  I  thank  God,  tliat  we  are  able  to  under- 
stand the  full  invitation  of  the  Gospel  of  Ciirist  to  the 
perishing  and  lost,  and  if  they  reject  it,  eternal  misery 
will  be  their  lot.  It  is  for  resisting  Divine  influence  that 
we  complain  of  sinners :  if  God  gave  them  no  power  to 
reform,  we  should  never  blame  them  for  not  doing  it,  but 
God  has  graciously  given  this  ability.  That  spirit  is  of 
God,  and  the  J3ible  says,  that  "  when  he  comes  he  shall 
convince  the  world  of  sin."  Again,  said  Christ,  "This 
is  condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and 
men  love  darkness  rather  than  light;"  Why?  because 
they  are  entirely  depraved;  for  another  reason — "because 
their  deeds  w^ere  evil."  This  is  the  cause  of  our  fault- 
finding with  sinners  ;  it  is  their  duty  to  receive  and  be- 
lieve the  Gospel.  Christ  is  here  to-day,  and  I  would  to 
God  he  would  fasten  this  truth  upon  their  minds,  that 
sinners  might  feel  his  power,  and  receive  the  gospel  invi- 
tation. There  is  enough  for  each,  enough  for  all,  and 
enough  for  evermore ;  the  great  and  small,  the  wise  and 
simple,  black  and  white,  bond  and  I'ree,  are  all  alike  in- 
vited to  share  this  benefit.  And  God,  in  his  love,  regards 
the  humblest  slave  that  toils  upon  the  Southern  planta- 
tion, and  who  crouches  beneath  the  whip,  as  equal  to  the 
highest  man  that  occupies  the  highest  throne  in  Europe ; 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


421 


hence,  we  offer  to  you  the  fullness  of  the  gospel  invita- 
tion. And  thougii  3'Ou  inherit  an  entirely  depraved 
nature,  and  have  an  inclination  to  evil,  God  gives  3'ou, 
by  his  grace,  the  power  to  resist  the  evil  and  cling  to  the 
good.  It  is  of  grace  you  have  it,  and  you  all  possess  it, 
for  there  is  a  measure  of  tlie  Spirit  of  God  given  to 
every  man ;  God  gives  it  that  you  may  profit  by  it,  not 
that  he  may  increase  your  agony,  but  tliat  you  may  be 
drawn  to  himself  It  is  for  this  express  purpose  liis 
Spirit  is  given,  and  if  you  resist  it,  you  are  guilty  before 
God,  as  were  the  Jews. 

Let  me  conclude.  I  may  see  you  no  more,  and  I  want 
you  to  bear  me  record  that  I  have  dealt  honestly,  and 
spoken  the  convictions  of  my  mind  and  heart.  I  will 
not  question  my  brother's  sincerity  in  what  he  has  ad- 
vanced, but  I  will  say,  that  on  this  point  I  differ  from 
him  honestly,  and  widely  it  may  be.  On  this  view  of 
moral  depravity  I  hold,  that  when  man  fell,  he  fell  entire, 
in  soul  and  body  ;  that  he  did  die  a  spiritual  death  ;  that 
he  was  morally  excluded  from  the  divine  tavor.  It  was 
not  till  the  promise  of  redemption  was  given,  that  the 
favor  of  God  was  again  lavished  upon  man ;  he  may  now 
draw  coratbrt  with  the  spirit  of  grace,  thi'ough  all  afflic- 
tions and  trials.  IIow  complicated,  how  wonderful  is 
man  !  Although  he  dies,  yet  dying  he  lives  for  ever ; 
an  angel's  arm  can  not  snatch  him  from  the  grave ;  yes, 
thanks  to  God,  who  giveth  us  the  victory,  myriads  of 
angels  can  not  confine  him  there.  The  Lion  of  the  tribe 
of  Judah  will  descend,  and  will  thrust  his  arm  into  the 
grave  of  sleeping  humanity,  and  bring  it  up  ;  and  I  can 
not  tell,  but  that  some  of  this  audience  may  already  have 
the  shadow  of  the  sepulcher  hanging  heavil}-  over  their 
brow.  But  be  it  so;  there  is  a  better  land;  there  is  a 
higher  and  holier  sphere,  where  human  passions  will 
never  be  stirred ;  there  is  a  place  where  the  pure  and 
blest  will  mingle  in  unceasing  songs  and  anthems  of 
praise,  world  without  end !  Are  you  not  happy  in  the 
contemplation  \    Whatever  of  error  may  attach  to  any, 


422 


DISCUSSION  ON 


it  shall  be  dropped  from  those  who  have  trusted  in  Christ, 
and  been  faithful  to  the  end,  and  have  received  him  as 
their  hope  and  stay,  and  as  their  support  to  the  end  of 
life.  I  hope  and  pray  that  God  may  grant  this  to  be  the 
inheritance  and  blessed  portion  of  every  one  in  this 
assembly. 

Mr.  Summerbell's  closing  reply,  and  Twenty-ninth 
speech : 

Kind  friends — the  closing  time  has  arrived ;  so  all 
things  earthly  must  have  an  end.  The  things  which  are 
seen  are  temporal,  only  the  things  not  seen,  are  eternal. 
Never  a  man  lived  but  what  this  sentence  closed  his 
history — he  died!  This  is  the  last  speech  of  our  dis- 
cussion— and  in  the  same  kind  feeling  in  which  we  com- 
menced, we  close. 

1.  My  brother  says  his  leading  propositions  have  not 
been  answered ;  but  you  will  be  the  better  judges  of 
that — at  least  more  impartial !  He  yet  thinks,  that  as 
Cain  was  very  bad,  he  must  have  been  entirely  depraved 
by  nature ;  as  well  might  he  say,  that  as  Abel  was  very 
good,  he  must  have  been  perfectly  holy  by  nature.  There 
is  just  as  much  evidence  that  both  were  born  perfectly 
holy,  as  that  both  were  born  entirely  depraved,  and  more, 
for  it  is  easier  to  conceive  of  the  one  falling  into  sin,  than 
of  the  other  rising  to  holiness. 

2.  He  states  the  propositions,  which  he  has  advanced 
to  prove  the  affirmative,  that  all  men  are  entirely  depraved 
and  inclined  to  evil  continually,  as  follows  : 

First :  "  That  God  created  man  upright."  On  this 
we  agree^  hence  there  is  no  discussion  on  it. 

Second:  "That  man  has  frllen  into  sin  and  ruin." 
On  this  we  agree,  hence  there  was  no  discussion  on  it. 

Third:  "That  all  mankind,  in  their  fallen  condi- 
tion^ are  morally  depraved."  On  this  we  are  perfectly 
agreed,  as  who  would  not  be  ?  On  this  there  is  no 
discussion. 

Fourth:  "  That  human  nature, in  its  fallen  condition, 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


423 


is  entirely  depraved."  On  this  one  point,  the  only  one 
involving  the  point  which  he  had  to  prove,  he  failed.  He 
brought  many  texts  to  prove  that  we  were  made  upright 
and  have  fallen  into  sin,  and  are  morally  depraved ;  but 
that  human  nature  is  entirely  depraved  by  nature,  he  has 
not  proved  by  one  solitary  text. 

Fifth :  Hq  illustrated  it  by  showing  that  men  opposed 
God's  law,  were  disobedient,  ungrateful,  cruel,  &c. ;  but 
there  was  no  discussion  on  these  points,  nor  do  they  prove 
the  main  ^''jproiJOsitionP  His 

Sixth:  Was,  "persons  are  only  responsible  for  their 
own  sins."  On  this  we  are  agreed,  and  hence  have  no 
discussion.  His 

Seventh :  Was,  that  "  further  evidence  can  be  deduced 
from  Scripture,  of  the  entire  depravity  of  our  nature." 
That  was  his  worh  ;  but  not  a  single  text  has  he  brought 
to  prove  it. 

Eighth :  "  That  infants  inherit  this  depravity  by  natu- 
ral generation,- from  an  entirely  depraved  parentage  ;  but 
that  as  infants  are  passive  in  the  fall,  so  they  are  not  the 
subjects  of  law,  and  are  therefore,  unconditionally  saved 
by  Jesus  Christ."    But  this  he  has  not  proved. 

3.  Pie  says,  that  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no 
law ;  and  that  the  sinner  is  not  blamed  for  any  thing  but 
refusing  to  close  in  with  the  overture  of  mercy.  But  if 
the  sinner  had  a  nature  totally  depraved  and  inclined  to 
evil,  and  that  continually,  he  would  have  to  change  that 
nature  before  he  could  accept  the  overtures  of  mercy. 
My  brother  says  he  differs  from  me  on  this  doctrinal  point 
"  very  widely,"  just  as  widely  as  I  differ  from  him  ;  but 
do  you  have  charity  for  me,  brother,  and  I  will  have 
charity  for  you,  and  feel  very  happy  in  the  difference. 

4.  He  believes  that  we  are  sinners  by  nature ;  but  I 
believe  that  some  were  "  Jews  hy  nature^  and  not  sin- 
ners of  the  Gentiles." — Galatians  ii,  15. 

5.  He  believes  that  children  are  totally  depraved  by 
natural  generation,  but  are  regenerated  in  some  way  in 
their  infancy.    Strange  that  God  should  justify  them,  if 


424 


DISCUSSION  ON 


totally  depraved,  -without  faith  or  repentance.  I  believe 
with  Jesus,  that,  ''of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven," 
and  deny  tlie  total  depravity. 

6.  He  saj's  that  we  are  all  en;^endered  in  sin,  but  that 
infants  that  die  are  regenerated.  If  all  are  not,  how 
does  he  know  that  those  that  die  are?  and  if  all  are,  then 
there  is  no  such  natural  depravity  in  the  world ;  for  we 
were  all  infants  once,  and  regenerated  then,* 

7.  He  thinks  that  we  are  born  totally  depraved ;  but 
I  can  not  believe  it.  I  believe  that  we  are  born  under 
the  beneficent  smile  of  our  heavenly  Father. 

8.  1  admit  the  sinfulness  of  the  human  race,  and 
mourn  over  it:  that  without  Jesus  Christ  and  his  salva- 
tion it  is  hopelessly  lost ;  but  I  regard  Jesus  as  an  All- 
sufficient  Saviour.  Upon  this  point  we  are  entirely 
agreed. 

9.  He  says  that  we  are  depraved  by  nature.  I  say 
that  we  are  depraved  by  practice. 

10.  He  has  acknowledged  that  by  entirely  he  meant 
totally;  and  yet  contends  that  children  are  not  totally, 
but  that  they  are  entirely,  depraved. 

11.  He  says  that  this  entire  depravity  comes  by  actual 
transorression,  contrary  to  his  discipline.  Art.  III.  which 
says,  tliat  it  is  "not  in  following  Adam  as  the  Pelagians 
do^  vainly  talk,''  but  that  "  it  is  naturally  engendered  of 
the  ofispring  of  Adam." 

12.  I  have  proved  that  if  human  nature  were  entirely 
depraved,  so  tliat  there  was  nothing  about  it  that  was  not 
sinful ;  tliat  then  righteousness,  being  contrary  to  our 
nature,  would  destroy  it  as  surely  as  the  tree  would  b2 
destroyed  by  removing  it  from  its  native  soil,  and  plant- 
ing it  upon  the  sterile  rock. 

13.  I  have  proved  that  the  texts  which  relate  to  man's 
depravity,  refer  to  his  own  sins,  and  not  those  of  others. 

14.  He  believes  that  we  sinned  in  Adam  before  we 
were  born  ;  but  I  believe  with  Paul,  Romans  ix,  11,  that 
"the  children  being  not  yet  born  had  done  neither  good 
nor  evil." 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


425 


15.  I  proved  that  parents  would  not,  and  could  not, 
love  their  children,  if  both  were  totally  depraved. 

16.  I  showed  that  if  mothers  were  totally  depraved, 
that  they  would  then  all  strive  to  kill  their  children,  in- 
stead of  loving  them.  He  admitted  the  fact,  by  referring 
to  Hindoo  mothers  casting  their  children  into  the  Ganges, 
&c. ;  thus  admitting  it  to  be  the  mother's  nature,  on  his 
theory,  to  kill  her  children  ! 

17.  I  proved  that  religion  is  natural  to  man,  and  that 
we  expect  the  young  to  conform  to  religion — to  act  reve- 
rently in  the  house  of  God,  &c.,  which,  were  they  totally 
depraved  by  nature,  would  be  useless  and  hypocritical, 
and  encouraging  hypocrisy  for  us  to  ask  them  to  do  so. 

18.  I  proved  that,  if  there  were  nothing  in  man  but 
total  depravity,  that  then  God  could  not  love  him  without 
loving  total  depravity. 

19.  He  asserted  that  man  had  entirely  fallen  from 
grace ;  but  to  my  demand  of,  how  he  could  be  saved  ? 
he  referred  to  the  gift  of  the  Saviour,  as  though  that 
were  not  proof  of  grace  already  existing. 

20.  I  proved  to  him  that  if  man  were  totally  depraved 
and  fallen  from  grace,  that  God  could  neither  love  him, 
nor  give  him  a  Saviour. 

21.  My  friend  was  sustained  in  his  argument  only 
by  Clarke,  and  other  human  authorities,  whose  creeds 
taught  total  depravity;  and  hence  they  were  ex  parte 
witnesses. 

22.  On  his  best  argument,  the  glass  of  water,  I  showed 
that  the  nature  of  water  was  not  changed,  but  only  the 
water  in  the  tumbler  was  tainted,  and  that  this  could  be 
restored,  the  nature  of  the  water  remaining  unchanged. 

23.  When  my  brother  appealed  to  the  Moderators, 
they  decided  against  him  ;  and  when  he  was  dissatisfied 
with  their  decision,  I  left  it  to  a  minister  on  his  own  side 
of  the  house,  and  he  decided  against  him. 

24.  My  brother,  by  the  aid  of  the  Scripture  Manual^'* 
has  only  sustained  the  doctrine  of  the  general  sinfulness 
and  depravity  of  man,  in  which  we  agree. 

36 


426 


DISCUSSION  ON 


25.  I  quoted  him  the  text,  "Thou  wqlQ perfect  in  thy 
ways  from  the  day  in  which  thou  wast  created,  until 
iniquity  was  found  in  thee to  which  he  has  not  re- 
sponded at  all. 

26.  To  my  numerous  proofs,  he  has  given  no  atten- 
tion, professing  that  he  would  be  foolish  to ;  in  which  we 
agree. 

27.  I  have  showed  that  his  theory  was  contrary  to  the 
plain  teachings  of  the  Bible,  and  that  the  texts  quoted  in 
support  of  it,  were  misapplied. 

28.  I  have  showed  that  his  theory  is  contrary  to 
observation  and  natural  philosophy,  and  that  mine  is 
agreeable  to  both,  and  proved  by  our  experience. 

And  now,  my  friends,  in  closing  up  this  discussion, 
I  shall  leave  you  to  judge  who  has  proved  his  position. 
I  do  not  wish  to  say  to  you  positively,  that  I  claim  every 
thing  over  my  brother.  I  confess,  however,  that  I  feel 
very  easy,  as  to  what  will  be  your  decision.  I  feel  very 
much  pleased  this  day.  I  am  not  aware,  that  in  any  day 
of  all  my  life,  I  have  felt  happier,  or  better  pleased. 

There  has  been,  on  the  whole,  a  manifestation  of  a 
general  good  feeling  throughout  the  discussion,  and  I 
feel  happy  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  it  has  been  so.  Not- 
withstanding some  few  disagreeable  manifestations  of 
feeling,  I  am  conscious  that  a  great  truth  has  been  sus- 
tained^ and  that  a  great  error  has  received  a  shock.  I 
would  rather  we  had  loved  a  little  more  uniformly,  but 
that  I  have  ever  been  angry,  I  do  not  remember.  In  the 
reminiscences  of  my  mind,  I  shall  long  have  pleasant 
associations  connected  with  this  debate.  I  have  no  ill- 
will  for  my  brother.  I  love  the  Methodist  Society;  both 
my  father  and  mother  were  once  connected  with  it ;  I 
have  labored  with  them  j  I  have  preached  in  their  pulpit, 


i 

HUMAN  DEPRAVITY.  427 

and  I  know  all  about  their  Society  and  their  Doctrine. 
When  I  was  invited  here,  it  grieved  me  that  I  was  to 
meet  a  Methodist  Protestant  brother.  I  would  have  pre- 
ferred to  have  met  a  minister  of  one  of  the  older,  and, 
if  you  will  allow  the  expression,  one  of  the  crustier  sects ; 
but  my  brother's  creed  was  the  same  as  theirs,  and  I 
trust  that  the  result  will  be  good. 

If  I  have,  during  this  discussion,  said  any  thing  that 
would  convey  an  idea  of  hostility  to  my  brother  or  his 
Church,  it  was  not  intentional,  and  you  will  please  not 
to  understand  me  so.  I  would  wish  to  follow  the  meek 
and  lowly  Jesus.  I  think  a  Christian  should  be  gentle 
and  forgiving^  and  I  would  desire  in  all  things  to  sus- 
tain 2i.pure  Christian  character^  and  endeavor  to  think 
better  of  my  brother,  than  of  myself ;  hence,  I  have  not 
called  my  brother  by  any  unseemly  epithets.  It  is  better 
we  should  be  like  Christ;  or  if  we  can  not  be  wholly  free 
from  sin,  yet,  if  we  sin,  that  it  may  not  be  without  mourn- 
ing for  it,  and  feeling  sorrowful  on  account  of  it. 

You  will  not  fail,  I  think,  to  see  a  difierence  between 
my  doctrine  and  my  brother's ;  as  great  a  difference,  as 
there  is  between  the  life  of  a  Christian,  and  the  life  of 
one  who  is  not.  Yet,  I  well  know,  that  it  is  not  a  mere 
technical  creed,  that  makes  a  man  a  Christian.  Paul 
says  of  the  Christian  gi-aces,  1  Cor.  xiii,  13,  "And  now 
abideth  faith,  hope,  charity,  these  three ;  but  the  greatest 
of  these  is  charity."  Charity  is  greater  than  faith  ! 
greater  than  hope !  we  must  have  love  for  our  fellow- 
beings.  "We  may  manifest  great  devotion  to  principles 
that  may  be  at  stake ;  but  if  we  have  not  charity,  it 
amounts  to  nothing.  The  errors  which  we  see  and  con- 
demn in  others,  we  must  learn  to  shun  ourselves.  The 


428 


DISCUSSION  ON 


Christian  life  is  the  only  one  worth  living  for ;  perhaps, 
you  have  tried  it,  if  you  have,  go  on.  If  you  have  not, 
commence ;  learn  it  by  practical  experience.  Jesus  said : 
"  If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doc- 
trine, whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  my- 
self;'' we  must  do  his  will,  if  we  would  understand  his 
religion.  It  is  only  by  doing  his  will,  that  we  can  learn 
his  doctrine.  '-''The  mystery  of  godliness is  learned 
by  practicing  godliness.  It  is  thus  we  learn  how  to  act ; 
how  to  pray ;  how  to  love  ;  and  how  to  be  kind  to  each 
other,  by  practicing  the  great  virtues  of  religion.  We 
should,  as  genuine  Christians,  strive  to  think,  and  to  feel 
and  to  act  like  Christ,  that  the  wicked  may  say  they 
have  been  with  Jesus,  and  learned  of  him,  because  they 
see  that  we  are  like  him.  Let  us  study  over  our  Bible,  and 
on  our  knees,  every  day  of  our  lives,  strive  to  attain  to 
its  celestial  meaning.  Parents,  be  kind  to  your  children, 
not  provoking  them  to  wrath ;  but  training  them  up  in 
the  nurture  and  the  admonition  of  the  Lord.  Children, 
love  your  parents,  obey  them,  reverence  them,  and  great 
shall  be  your  reward ;  the  first  commandment,  with  pro- 
mise, is :  "  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother,  that  thy 
days  may  be  long  in  the  land,  which  the  Lord  thy  God 
giveth  thee.''  "We  shall  soon  pass  away  from  this  earth, 
and  all  its  trials.  My  brother  and  I  may  never  meet 
again  on  earth.  I  attended  a  debate  in  Illinois,  in  which 
Mr.  Phelps  and  Mr.  Barr  took  part,  and  in  which  I  be- 
came a  principal ;  that  very  autumn  the  Gospel  Herald 
announced  the  death  of  Mr.  Phelps,  and  Mr.  Barr,  in  the 
same  number ;  they  did  not  live  to  see  another  year. 
When  we  think  of  these  things,  it  should  lead  us  to  pre- 
pare our  minds  for  our  own  end,  for  we  may  never  live 


HUMAN  DEPRAVITY. 


429 


to  see  aD other  summer.  In  reference  to  this  debate,  I 
admit  that  we  have  not,  at  all  times,  maintained  that 
standing  before  you,  that  you  might  have  desired ;  but 
remember,  that  to  err,  is  liuman  ;  but  to  forgive,  is  di- 
vine.  We  will  see  who  are  divine^  as  well  as  who  are 
human^  by  seeing  who  are  most  ready  to  forgive.  And 
when  the  scenes  of  time  are  passed,  I  hope  to  meet  you  all 
again,  where  your  eyes  will  never  grow  dim  with  tears — 
where  the  Lamb  will  gird  himself,  and  serve  us  on  the 
other  side  of  Jordan — where  there  will  be  no  contention, 
but  where  we  shall  join  with  the  angels  in  ascribing 
glory,  and  honor,  dominion,  wisdom,  riches,  and  strength, 
and  thanksgiving  to  Him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne, 
and  unto  the  Lamb,  for  ever  and  ever. 

I  thank  this  audience  for  the  patience  and  attention 
with  which  they  have  listened  to  our  remarks,  and  for 
the  kindness  they  have  manifested,  in  inviting  us  to  their 
homes.  With  true  Christian  love  have  they  greeted  us. 
May  God  bless  them  for  it ;  may  the  blessing  of  heaven 
rest  upon  this  place,  and  may  you  and  your  children  be 
made  recipients  of  the  saving  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

And  to  you,  gentlemen  Moderators,  who  have  borne 
with  us,  when,  perhaps,  you  might  have  felt  it  to  be  your 
duty  to  interfere  ;  for  your  patience  I  thank  you,  and 
may  God  bless  you — may  he  keep  you  in  his  love  ;  and 
may  you  never  have  to  say  that  your  confidence  in  the 
great  truths  of  Christianity  has  been  shaken  by  this  dis- 
cussion. 

And  to  our  friends,  the  Keporters,  who  have  day  by 
day  been  recording  our  words,  I  render  my  thanks.  May 
God,  in  his  great  goodness,  abundantly  bless  you.  And 


430 


ADDENDA. 


now  I  must  bid  you  all  farewell ;  may  God  go  with  you 
to  your  homes,  and  prosper  you  in  your  undertakings. 
May  the  peace  of  God  be  upon  you,  and  may  his  face 
shine  upon  you  ;  may  the  light  of  his  countenance  ever 
illuminate  your  path.  And  when  we  have  passed  from 
the  scenes  of  time,  bidding  adieu  to  the  sorrows  of  life 
and  its  last  trials,  may  we  not  look  back  with  sorrow  or 
regret;  but  with  the  pleasing  reflection  that  we  have 
fought  a  good  fight,  and  finished  our  course,  so  that  we 
may  receive  the  crown  prepared  for  the  faithful  in  Christ 
Jesus.  Farewell. 

END  OF  THE  DISCUSSION. 


ADDENDA. 

Mr,  Flood  desired  to  say  a  few  words. 

I  return  my  thanks  to  you,  gentlemen  Moderators, 
for  the  disinterested  manner  in  which  you  have  presided 
over  our  deliberations,  which  has  left  not  the  slightest 
occasion  to  complain.  To  these  gentlemen,  the  Report- 
ers, I  return  my  thanks.  They  Lave  certainly  been  most 
attentive  in  taking  a  record  of  our  proceedings,  and  from 
an  opportunity  I  have  had  of  judging,  from  a  transcrip- 
tion of  a  sermon  of  mine,  preached  last  Sabbath,  they 
will  give  us  a  strictly  correct  report — which  I  am  happy 
in  anticipating.  To  this  large  and  attentive  audience,  I 
return  my  thanks.  It  may  be  that,  in  the  providence  of 
God,  it  will  be  my  privilege,  at  some  future  time,  to  pre- 


ADDENDA. 


431 


sent  to  you  the  glorious  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 
for  which  I  have  here  contended  in  the  character  of 
a  preacher,  ratiier  than  of  a  debater.  I  shall  leave  here 
with  the  kindest  feelings  and  wishes  for  the  good  of  all, 
and  would  offer  to  heaven  a  prayer  that  its  choicest 
blessings  may  rest  upon  you  and  your  children. 

The  Modeeatoks. — Mr.  Griffin,  (Christian)  one  of  the 
Moderators  said,  that  he  felt  very  much  pleased  in  the 
happy  termination  of  the  discussion.  He  believed  that 
there  was  a  geneml  kind  feeling  existing  among  all  par- 
ties ;  and  that  the  Discussion,  as  a  whole,  had  no  tendency 
to  widen  the  difference  between  the  contending  parties,  but 
rather  to  unite  them  ;  and  hoped  that  we  might  all  strive 
for  that  love  and  union  which  would  promote  the  cause 
of  Zion.  He  alluded  to  the  happy  unanimity  which  had 
existed  among  the  Moderators  upon  all  questions  sub- 
mitted to  them  ;  and  of  the  intimate  acquaintance  which 
he  had  formed  with  them,  by  being  associated  with  them 
in  the  Board,  which  he  should  ever  remember  with  pleas- 
ing recollections. 

Mk.  Fowler  (Methodist  Protestant)  united  with  Mr. 
Griffin  in  expressing  the  same  sentiments.  He  had  never 
seen  a  discussion  conducted  with  so  uniform  Christian 
feeling,  and  he  thought  that  this  would  at  least  teach  the 
people  that  we  could  discuss  our  differences  in  love.  He 
should  long  remember  the  scenes  with  pleasure.  He  had 
formed  an  acquaintance  with  brother  Summerbell  some- 
time previous,  and  he  was  very  happy  in  the  renewal  of 
that  acquaintance  on  this  occasion ;  and  wherever  our 


432 


ADDENDA. 


lots  might  be  cast  on  earth,  he  hoped  that  we  might  one 
day  meet  in  heaven. 

On  motion,  The  thanks  of  the  Congregation  was  ten- 
dered to  the  Speakers,  which  terminated  the  proceedings. 

The  congregations  were  usually  large,  and  much  of 
the  time  very  much  crowded.  All  the  meetings  for  dis- 
cussion were  opened  with  prayer,  and  a  general  religious 
interest  pervaded  the  whole. 

BENN  PITMAN, 
lie'poTteT . 


AFPLEGATE  &.  COMPANY, 


No.  43  UAIN  STREET,  CINCINNATI. 


In  addition  to  a  large  and  vanea  assortment  of 

School,  Classical,  Theological  and  Miscellaneous  Books, 

which  they  have  constantly  on  hand,  publish  a  series  of 

VALUABLE  STANDARD  WORKS, 

suitable  for  the  family  circle,  as  well  as  public  libraries. 

At  this  time,  when  the  press  teems  so  abundantly  with  ephe- 
meral literature,  the  thinking  mind  experiences  a  need  of  more 
substantial  aliment ;  of  something  which  shall  at  the  same  time 
furnish  not  only  enjoyment  for  the  present,  but  for  after  thought ; 
something  from  the  perusal  of  which,  one  can  arise  a  wiser,  if  not 
a  better  man  :  and  among  their  publicalions,  tliey  flatter  them- 
selves such  books  will  be  found.  It  is  their  aim  to  select  such 
works,  the  intrinsic  worth  of  which  will  cause  them  to  be  sought 
after  bv  enlightened  and  discriminating  minds,  and  as  worthy 
of  gracing  the  shelves  of  their  libraries. 

Among  their  publications  may  be  found  the  following,  to 
which  they  would  respectfully  invite  attention.  To  these  it  ia 
their  intention  to  add  the  best  works  of  the  standard  Historical 
and  other  authors,  and  they  trust  that  tlieir  selections  will  be 
such  as  to  entitle  them  to  a  liberal  share  of  the  patronage  of  the 
book-buying  public. 


APPLEGATE  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


DR.  ADAM  CLARKE'S  COMPLETE  COMMENTAEY 
ON  THE  OLD  AND  HEW  TESTAMENTS. 

Willi  a  portrait  of  tlie  author,  engraved  expressly  for 
^is  edition,  accompanied  with  Maps,  &c.  Plain  and  em- 
bossed gilt. 

From  the  Nashville  ani  Louisville  Christian  Advocate. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  find  any  contribution  to  Sacred 
Literature  that  has  attained  to  a  higher  rank  than  the 
Commentaries  of  Dr.  Adam  Clarke.  Whether  regarded 
as  a  pro  iigy  of  human  learning,  or  as  a  monument  of 
what  perseverencc  and  industry,  within  the  compass  of  a 
single  lifetime,  can  accomplish,  it  will  long  continue  to 
challenge  the  admiration  of  men  as  a  work  of  unrivalled 
merit.  It  is  a  treasury  of  knowledge,  in  the  ac;  umula- 
tion  of  which,  the  an'Jior  seems  to  have  had  no  purpose 
in  view  but  the  apprehension  of  truth  ;  not  to  sustain  a 
particular  creed,  but  the  apprehension  of  truth  for  truth's 
own  sake,  restrained  in  the  noble  pursuits  of  no  party 
tenets  by  no  ardor  for  favorite  dogmas.  It  is  difficult  to 
conceive  of  a  con.plete  library  without  this  valuable  work, 
and  yet  alone  of  itself,  it  affords  to  its  possessor  no  mean 
yariely  of  entertainment.  Besides  forming  a  moderate,  but 
clear  elucidation  of  the  true  meaning  of  tlie  Sacred  Word,  it 
abounds  with  illustrations  in  science,  tlie  literature  of  all 
ages,  and  the  history  of  m11  times  and  all  countries  ;  and  as 
a  lexicon  tor  the  eXj  .>sition  of  abstruse  phrases,  of  difficult 
terms,  and  the  true  gt  nealogy  of  words  of  doubtful  in: port, 
it  immeasurably  surpasses  all  similar  works  of  the  age." 


DE.  ADAM  CLARKE'S  COMMEIJTAEY  ON  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT. 

2  vols,  super-royal  llvo.    Plain  and  embo?;sed  gilt. 

The  increasing  demand  for  Dr.  Clarke's  Commentary 
on  the  y^w  Testament,  has  induced  us  to  issue  an  edition 
on  superior  paper,  large  clear  type,  handsomely  and  sub- 
stantially bound,  containing  1978  pages,  with  a  portrait 
of  the  author. 


APPLEGATE      CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


THE  COMPLETE  WORKS  OF  THOilAS  DICK,  LI  D 

1 1  vols,  in  2  ;  containing  An  Essay  on  the  Iniprovemenl 
of  Society  ;  The  Philosophy  of  a  Fu[ure  State  ;  The  Phi- 
losophy of  Religion ;  The  Mental  Illumination  and  Moral 
Improvement  of  Mankind ;  An  Essay  on  the  Sn  and  E\il8 
of  Covetousness ;  The  Christian  Philosopher,  or  Science 
and  Religion;  Celeciial  Scenery,  illustrated;  Sideral  Hea- 
vens, Planets,  etc. ;  The  Practical  Astronomer;  The  Solar 
System,  its  Wonders  ;  The  Atmosphere  and  Atmospherical 
Phenomena,  <fec.  Illustrated  with  numerous  enoravinors 
and  a  portrait.  2  vols,  royal  8vo.  Plain  and  embossed 
gUt. 

This  edition  is  printed  from  entirely  new  plates,  contain' 
ing  the  recent  revisions  of  the  author,  and  is  the  only  com- 
plete edUion  published  in  the  United  States. 

"  Dick's  Works. — Those  who  read  at  all,  know  both 
tlie  name  of  Dr.  Dick  and  the  work  itself  now  reprinted. 
It  has  long  found  acceptance  with  the  pubhc." — Preshy- 
terian  Review,  Edinhurg. 


"We  hail  this  remarkably  cheap  and  greatly  improved 
edition  of  Dr.  Dick's  admirable  and  highly  pc  pular  Works. 
It  it  is  a  real  love  to  the  millions  to  be  able  to  purchase 
such  an  excellent  work  for  so  inconsiderable  n  cost.  We 
earnestly  recommend  this  work  to  all  our  readers,  and  es- 
pecially to  all  who  desire  to  store  their  ntinds  with  gene- 
ral information.'' — Wesley  an  Associated  Magazine,  London. 


**  Eleven  different  works  are  embraced  in  these  vol- 
umes, making  it  an  edition  full  ?  id  complete.  The  range 
of  subjects  embraced  in  these  S'  veral  essays  and  scientifie 
treatises  is  varied,  are  all  highjy  important,  and  of  prac- 
tical utility  to  mankind  generally.  These  characteristics 
of  Dr.  Dick's  writings,  while  they  render  them  perma- 
nently valuable,  insure  for  them  also  a  wide  circula'ioa 
among  ail  classes  of  readers." — Presbyterian  of  the  West. 


APPLEGATE  &  CO/S  PUBLICATIONS. 


ROILIN'S  ANCIENT  HISTORY. 

The  Ancient  History  of  the  Carthagenians,  Assyrians, 
Babylonians,  Medes  and  Persians,  Grecians  and  Macedo- 
nians, including  a  History  of  the  Arts  and  Sciences  of  the 
Ancients,  with  a  Life  of  the  Author.  2  vols,  royal  8vo. 
Plain  and  embossed  gilt. 

*'A  new  edition  of  Rollin's  Ancient  History  has  just 
been  issued  by  Applegate  &  Co.  The  value  and  impor- 
tance of  this  work  are  universally  acknowledged.  Every 
private  library  is  deficient  without  it;  and  it  is  now  fur- 
nished at  so  cheap  a  rate,  that  every  family  should  have 
it.  It  should  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  all  our  youth,  as 
infinitely  more  instructive  and  useful  than  the  thousand 
and  one  trashy  pubhcations  with  which  the  country  is 
deluged,  and  which  are  so  apt  to  vitiate  the  taste,  and  ruin 
the  minds  of  young  readers.  One  word  more  in  behalf  of 
this  new  edition  of  Rollin  :  It  may  not  be  generally  known 
that  in  previous  English  editions  a  large  and  interesting 
portion  of  the  work  has  been  suppressed.  The  deficien- 
cies are  here  supplied  and  restored  from  the  French  edi- 
tions, giving  the  copy  of  Messrs.  Applegate  &  Co.  a  supe- 
riority over  previous  English  editions." —  Western  Recorder , 


"A  superb  edition  of  this  indispensable  text  and  refe- 
rence book  is  published  by  Messrs.  Applegate  &  Co. 
The  work  in  this  form  has  been  for  some  years  before  the 
public,  and  is  the  best  and  most  complete  edidon  pub- 
lished. The  work  is  comprised  in  two  volumes  of  about 
600  pages  each,  containing  the  prefaces  of  Rollin  and  the 
**  Histoiy  of  the  Arts  aii  i  Sciences  of  the  Ancients,  which 
have  been  omitted  in  most  American  editions." — Spring- 
field Bepuhlic. 


**  Tlie  work  is  too  well  known,  and  has  too  long  been  a 
favorite,  to  require  an}'  commendation  from  us.  Though 
in  some  matters  more  recent  investigations  have  led  to 
conclusions  different  from  those  of  the  Author,  yet  his 
general  accuracy  is  unquestionable." — West.  Chris.  Adv, 


APPLEGATE  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


MOSHEIM'S  CHURCH  HISTORY. 

Ancient  and  Modern,  from  the  birth  of  Christ  to  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  in  which  the  Rise,  Progress,  and  Varia- 
tions of  Church  Power  are  considered  in  their  connection 
with  the  state  of  Learning  and  Philosophy ;  and  the  Politi- 
cal History  of  Europe  during  that  period,  continued  up  to 
the  present  time,  by  Charles  Coote,  LL.  D.  806  pages, 
1  vol.;  quarto,  spring  back,  marble  edge. 


From  the  Masonic  Retkxjc. 

This  great  standard  history  of  the  Church  from  the  birth  of 
Christ,  has  just  been  issued  in  a  new  dress  by  the  extensive  pub- 
lishing house  of  Applegate  «fc  Co.  J^othing  need  be  said  by  us 
in  relation  to  the  merits  or  reliability  of  Mosheim's  History  :  it 
has  long  borne  the  approving  seal  of  the  Protestant  world.  It 
has  become  a  standard  work,  and  no  public  or  private  library  is 
complete  without  it ;  nor  can  an  individual  be  well  posted  in  th« 
history  of  the  Christian  Church  for  eighteen  hundred  years, 
without  having  carefully  studied  Mosheim.  We  wish,  however, 
particularly  to  recommend  the  present  edition.  The  pages  are 
in  large  double  columns  ;  the  type  is  large  and  very  distinct,  and 
the  printing  is  admirable,  on  tine  while  paper.  It  is  really  a 
pleasure  to  read  such  print,  and  we  recommend  our  friends  to 
purchase  this  edition  of  this  indispensable  work. 


From  the  Telescope,  Dayton,  O. 

This  work  has  been  placed  upon  our  table  by  the  gentlemanlj 
and  enterprising  publishers,  and  we  are  glad  of  an  opportunity 
to  introduce  so  beautiful  an  edition  of  this  standard  Church  his- 
tory to  our  readers.  The  work  is  printed  on  beautiful  white 
paper,  clear  large  type,  and  is  bound  in  one  handsome  volume. 
No  man  ever  sat  down  to  read  Mosheim  iu  so  pleasing  a  dress. 
"What  a  treat  is  such  an  edition  to  one  who  has  been  studying 
this  elegant  work  in  small  close  print  of  other  editions. 


From  Professor  Wrightson. 

Whatever  book  has  a  tendency  to  add  to  our  knowledge  of 
God,  or  the  character  or  conduct  of  his  true  worshipers,  or  that 

Eoints  out  the  errors  and  mistakes  of  former  generations,  must 
ave  an  elevating,  expanding,  and  purifying  influence  on  the 
human  mind.  Such  a  work  is  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History. 
Like  "  RoUin's  History  of  the  Ancients,"  it  is  the  standard,  and 
is  too  well  known  to  need  a  word  of  comment. 


APPLEGATE  k  GO  'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


GATHERED  TKEASURES  ESOJI  THE  MINES  OF 
LITERATURE. 

Contaiuing  Tales,  Skeicbes,  Anecdotes,  aiul  Gems  of  Thought, 
Literary,  Moral,  Pleasiu^  and  In&truciivu.  iUusU-ated  with 
Steel  plates.     1  vol.  octavo.  Eniboised. 

To  furnish  a  volume  of  mi.-^cellaneou.s  literature  both  pleasing 
and  instructive,  has  been  the  ob^eot  of  the  editor  in  compiling 
this  work,  as  well  to  supply,  to  so.ne  exient,  at  least,  the  place 
tljat  is  now  occupied  by  publications  which  few  will  deny  are  of 
a  questionable  moral  tendency. 

It  has  been  tlie  intention  to  imke  this  volume  a  suitable  travel- 
ing and  fireside  companion,  profitat>ly  enga^^ing  the  leisure  mo- 
ments of  the  former,  and  adding  an  utidifional  charni  to  the 
cheerful  glow  of  the  latter;  to  blend  amusement  with  instruc- 
tion, pleasure  with  profit,  and  to  p  esent  an  extensive  garden  of 
Tigorous  and  u.seful  plants,  and  beautiful  and  fragrant  flow.-rs, 
among  which,  perchance,  there  may  be  a  few  of  inferior  worth, 
though  none  of  utter  inutility.  Wliiie  it  is  not  exclusively  a  re- 
ligious work,  yet  it  contains  no  article  that  may  not  be  read  by 
the  most  devoted  Christian. 

From  the  Cincinnati  Diily  Times. 

This  is  certainly  a  book  of  rare  merit,  and  well  calculated  for 
a  rapid  and  general  circulation.  Its  contents  present  an  exten- 
sive variety  of  subjects,  and  these  not  only  carefully  but  judi- 
ciously selected,  and  arranged  in  appropriate  departments.  Its 
contents  have  been  highly  >poken  of  by  men  of  di>tinguished 
literary  ac'imeu,  both  editors  and  ministers  of  various  Christian 
deuoraiuations.    We  ciieerfully  recommend  it. 


Gatheeed  Tre.aslres  from  the  Mines  of  Liter.atlee. — "One 
of  the  most  interesting  everyday  books  ever  published  Like  the 
Spectator,  it  may  be  perused  again  and  again,  and  yet  afford 
•omething  to  interest  and  amuse  the  rea-ier.  Its  varied  and  choice 
Selections  of  whatever  is  beautiful  or  witty,  startling  or  amus- 
ing, can  not  fail  to  aflford  rich  enjoyment  to  minds  of  every  char- 
acter, and  a  pleasant  relaxation  from  more  severe  and  vigorous 
reading."   


Gathebkd  Treasures — "A  choice  collection  of  sliort  and  in- 
teresting articles,  comprising  selections  from  the  ablest  authors. 
Unlike  voluminous  works,  its  varied  selections  aflford  amusement 
for  a  leisure  moinent,  or  entertaiujnent  for  a  winter  eveiiijig  It 
is  alike  a  companion  for  the  railroad  car,  the  library  and  parlor, 
sad  never  fails  to  iuttrest  its  reader." 


APPLEGATE  &;  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


TcE  SPEC  - A  OR. 

1  vol.  royal  8vo,  750  pages,  with  a  portrait  of  Addi- 
son.   Plain  and  embossed  gilt. 

The  numerous  calls  for  a  coivjylete  and  cheap  edition  of 
this  valuable  work,  have  induced  us  to  newly  stereotype  U, 
in  this  form,  corresponding  in  style  and  price  with  our 
other  books.  Its  thorough  revisions  have  been  committed 
to  competent  hands,  and  will  be  found  complete. 

From  ike  Central  Christ'an  Herald. 

"  One  hundred  and  forty  years  ago,  when  there  were 
no  daily  newspapers  nor  periodicals,  nor  ch(  ap  fictions  for 
the  people,  the  ISpectatoii  had  a  daily  circulation  in  Eng- 
land. It  was  witty,  pithy,  tasteful,  and  at  times  vigoious, 
and  lashed  the  vices  and  follies  of  the  age,  and  inculcated 
many  useful  lessons  which  would  have  been  disregarded 
from  more  serious  sources-.  It  was  widely  popular.  It 
contains  some  very  excellent  writing,  not  in  the  spasmodic, 
moon-struck  style  of  the  fine  writing  of  the  present  day, 
but  in  a  free,  graceful  and  flowing  manner.  It  used  to  be 
considered  essential  to  a  good  st}  le  and  a  knuwledge  of 
Belles-Lettres  to  have  studied  the  Spectator,  and  we  are 
certain  our  age  is  not  wise  in  the  selection  of  some  of 
the  substitutes  which  are  used  in  its  stead.  It  should  3'et 
be  a  parlor  volume,  which  should  be  read  with  great  profit. 

*'  But  we  do  not  design  to  criticise  the  book,  but  have 
prefixed  these  few  facts  for  the  information  of  our  readers 
to  a  no:ice  of  a  new  ediiion  of  (he  work  bv  Messrs.  Apple- 
gate  tfe  Co.  It  is  entirely  of  Cincinnati  manufacture,  and 
is  in  a  style  very  creditable  to  the  enterprising  house 
which  has  brought  it  out." 


From  ih"  Cincinruiti  Commercial. 
"  Appleoate  &  Co.,  43  Main  street,  have  just  published, 
in  a  handsome  octavo  volume  of  750  pages,  one  of  the 
very  best  classics  in  our  langUHge.  It  would  be  super- 
flu()us  at  this  day  to  wri'e  a  line  in  commendation  of  this 
tv-ork.  The  wikings  of  Addison  are  imperishable,  and 
will  continue  to  charm  youth  and  age  while  language  lasts,* 


APPLEGATE  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


PLUTARCH'S  LIVES. 

Witli  Historical  and  Critical  Notes,  and  a  Life  of  Plu- 
tarch. Illustrated  with  a  portrait.  Plain  and  embossed 
gilt. 

This  edition  has  been  carefully  revised  and  corrected, 
and  is  printed  upon  entirely  new  plates,  stereotyped  by 
ourselves,  to  correspond  with  our  library  edition  of  Dick*t 
Works,  &c. 

From  the  Nashville  and  Louisville  Christian  Advocate. 
"  Plutarch's  Lives. — This  great  work,  to  which  has 
long  since  been  awarded  the  first  honors  of  literatute,  is 
now  published  complete  in  one  volume  by  Messrs.  Apple- 
gate  &  Co.,  of  Cinciijjati,  and  offered  at  so  low  a  price  as 
to  place  it  within  the  reach  of  all.  This  is  a  desideratum, 
especially  in  this  age  of  'many  books.'  Next  in  impor- 
tance to  a  thorough  knowledge  of  history,  and  in  many 
respects  fully  equal  to  it,  is  the  study  of  well  authenti- 
cated biography.  For  this  valuable  purpose,  we  know  of 
no  work  extant  superior  to  the  fifty  lives  of  Plutarch.  It 
is  a  rare  magazine  of  literary  and  biographical  knowledge. 
The  eminent  men  whose  lives  compose  this  work,  consti- 
tute almost  the  entire  of  that  galaxy  of  greatness  and 
brightness,  which  stretches  across  the  horizon  of  the  dis- 
tant past,  and  casts  upon  the  present  time  a  mild  and 
steady  luster.  Many  of  them  are  among  the  most  illus- 
trious of  the  earth.'* 


FrojTi  the  Ladies'  Repository. 
**  It  is  a  better  piece  of  property  for  a  young  man  to 
own,  than  an  eighty  acre  lot  in  the  Mississippi  Valley,  or 
many  hundred  dollars  in  current  money.  We  would 
rather  leave  it  as  a  legacy  to  a  son,  had  we  to  make  the 
choice,  than  any  moderate  amount  of  property,  if  we  were 
certain  he  would  read  it;  and,  we  are  bound  to  add,  that, 
were  we  now  going  to  purchase  a  copy,  this  edition  would 
have  the  preference  over  ever}'  other  of  which  we  havn 
my  knowledge." 


APPLEGATE  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


KOTES  ON  THE  TWENTY-IIVE  ARTICLES  OF  RE 
LIGION,  as  received  and  taught  by  Methodists  in  thi 
United  States, 

In  which  the  doctrines  are  carefully  considered  and 
supported  by  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Bj 
Rev.  A.  A.  JiMEsoN,  M.  D.    12mo,  embossed  cloth. 

This  book  contains  a  clear  exposition  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Articles,  and  of  the  errors  against  which  the  Articles 
were  directed,  written  in  a  popular  style,  and  divided  into 
sections,  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  each  doctrine  and 
its  opposite  error  in  the  most  prominent  manner. 

From  Rev.  John  Millar. 
*'  It  is  a  book  for  the  Methodist  and  for  the  age — a  re- 
ligious multum  in  parvo — combining  sound  theology  with 
practical  religion.    It  should  be  found  in  every  Methodist 
family.'' 


From  Rev.  "W.  R.  Babcock,  Pastor  of  the  Methodist  Church  in  Si 
Louis,  Missouri. 

**From  our  intimate  acquaintance  wifh  the  gifted  and 
pious  Author  of  these  *  Notes,'  we  anticipate  a  rich  intel- 
lectual feast,  and  an  able  defense  of  the  Biblical  origin  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  Articles  of  Religion,  as  contained  in 
the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Church." 


The  laymen  of  the  Methodist  Church  have  long  need- 
ed this  work.  Although  we  regard  the  Twenty-Five  Ar- 
ticles as  self-evident  truths — the  concentrated  teachings  of 
the  Holy  Bible,  and  the  bulwark  of  the  Protestant  Faith 
— they  are  not  sufficiently  understood  and  comprehended 
by  those  professing  to  believe  them.  Dr.  Jimeson  has 
furnished  us,  in  a  condensed  form  and  popular  style,  with 
a  lucid  exposition  and  triumphant  defense  of  our  faith, 
sustained  and  supported  by  history  and  the  opinions  of 
the  Fathers,  and  adapted  to  the  present  wants  of  tha 
Church." 


APPLEGATE  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


M£THaDlSM  EXPL.VINED  AND  DEFENDED. 

By  Rev.  John  S.  Inskip.    12mo,  embossed  cloth. 

Fran  the  Herald  and  Jimmal. 
"We  have  read  this  book  with  no  ordinary  interest, 
and  on  llie  whole,  rejoice  in  its  appearance  for  several 
reasons — Fird,  It  is  a  concise  anil  poweiful  defense  of 
every  esseniial  feature  of  Melhoclisni,  now-a-days  so  much 
assailed  by  press  and  pulpit.  Se  ond.  The  general  plan 
and  charac  er  of  the  work  are  such,  that  it  will  be  read 
and  appreciated  by  the  great  masses  of  our  people  who 
are  not  familiar  wiih  more  extended  and  elaborate  woiks. 
Third,  It  is  highly  con.seivalive  and  practical  in  its  ten- 
dencies, and  will  eminently  tend  to  create  liberal  views 
and  mutual  confession  between  the  ministry  and  laiiy  for 
the  go  >d  of  the  whole — a  feaiure  in  our  eronomy  never  to 
be  overlooked.  Fourth,  This  work  is  not  written  to  ad- 
Yocate  some  local  or  neighborhood  prejudice;  neither  to 
confute  some  particular  heresy  or  assault;  but  its  \iews 
are  peculiarly  denominational  ami  comprehensive,  indicat- 
ing the  careful  and  v\ide  observation  of  the  author — fre# 
from  bigoLry  and  narrow  piejudice." 


From  the  Spr.ngfichl  Repuhlic. 
"  We  have  read  this  new  w^rk  of  Rev.  J.  S.  Inskip  with 
great  pleasure  and  protit.  It  in  very  truth  explains  and 
def<'ncis  Methodism,  and,  as  tlu?  introduc  ion  (vvritien  bj 
another)  says,  'its  pages  cover  nearly  the  whole  held  of 
controversy  in  regaid  to  the  polity  of  tlie  Methodist 
Cliurch,  and  [.resent  a  clear  r.nd  candid  exposition  of  Me- 
thodism in  a  clear  and  systematic  form,  and  highly  argu- 
mentative style.  It  is  a  book  for  the  times,  and  should  be 
read  by  all  who  desire  to  become  more  intimately  ac- 
quainied  with  the  Meth;)dist  economy.  It  excels  all  other 
works  oi  its  c'ass  in  the  arrangement  and  judicious  treat- 
ment of  its  subject.'  It  has  evidently  been  written  wi;h 
great  prudence  and  care  in  reference  to  the  facts  and  evi- 
dences on  which  the  arguments  are  piedicated.  This 
book  will  doub:less  be  of  general  service  to  the  Chuich, 
and  an  instrument  of  great  good." 


APPLEGATE  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


PETERSON'S  FAMILIAR  SCIENCE; 

Or,  the  Scit'Diific  ExplanaiitD  of  Ciiriinon  Things. 

Edited  by  R.  E.  Peterson,  Member  of  the  Academy  oi 
Natural  Sciences,  Philadelphia. 

From  T.  S.  Abthuk,  EJilor  of  the  Home  Gazette. 

*'*  Familiar  Science,  or  the  Scitntific  Explanation  of 
Common  Tilings,'  is  one  v>f  the  most  generally  useful 
bonks  that  has  Iat<'ly  been  printed.  Tuis  work,  or  h  por- 
i'u'.n  of  It,  came  liist  from  the  pen  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Jirewer, 
of  Trinity  Hall,  C'-.ubjidge  ;  but,  in  the  foini  it  tirst  ap- 
peared from  tlie  £]nglish  pre.-s,  it  was  not  nnly  unsui'cd  to 
the  American  pu]  il,  but  very  deficient  in  arrangement. 
These  defects,  the  editor  Isas  sought  to  ren-edy.  To  give 
not  only  to  the  parent  a  ready  means  cf  answering  inqui- 
ries, hut  to  provide  a  i^ood  book  for  schools,  is  the  object 
of  this  volume.  About  two  thousand  fjuestions,  on  all 
subjects  of  general  information,  are  answered  iu  language 
so  plain  that  all  may  understand  it." 


Fiwn  Wm.  S.  CLATtNGhR,  Pi'incpil  of  Grammar  School,  Pfdla, 

"The  pages  of  'Familiar  Science'  are  its  best  recom- 
mendation. Tlie  common  plunomena  of  life  are  treated 
of  in  a  simple  and  intelligible  manner,  which  renders  it 
both  pleasing  ard  instruc  ive.  In  the  family  circle,  as  a 
text  book,  it  will  form  the  basis  of  an  hour's  interesting 
wuiversaiion,  and  in  the  hands  of  tire  pupil,  it  will  be  a 
valuable  aid  in  the  acquisition  of  useful  knowledge." 


Frm  Wm.  IIoberts.  Princ'pal  of  Rlngwoll  School,  Phtladelphia. 

"Robert  ^.  Petkrson,  Esq — Dear  Sir — I  have  been 
much  graiitied  by  an  examination  of  your  book,  entitled 
'Familiar  Science.'  'J'lie  cause  of  every  day  phenomena, 
such  as  evaporation,  condensation,  the  formation  of  clouds, 
rain,  dew,  etc.,  are  so  familiarly  explained,  that  all  classes 
of  persons  may  readily  compn  hend  them,  and  ]  believe 
the  book  has  only  to  be  known  to  be  appreciated  by 
teachers." 


APPLEGATE  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


SACRED  LITERATTOE  OF  THE  LORD'S  PRAYER. 

In  vbich  terms  are  defined,  and  the  text  carefullj  considered. 
12mo.,  clorh. 

This  is  a  volume  of  rare  excellence,  vritten  in  the  author'* 
usual  style  of  great  beautv  arid  elegance.  It  sparkles  with  gems 
of  elevated  thought,  and  abounds  in  the  most  happy  illustrations 
of  the  great  phil  isophical  bearings  of  the  several  petitions  of  the 
LoT-d"s  Prayer,  on  the  general  >;ystem  of  Revealed  Religion, -while 
their  philo-ophy  is  very  forcibly  applied  to  the  various  duties  of 
practical  Christianity. 

"The  introductory  chapter  is  a  learned  and  patient  research 
into  the  real  origin  and  history  of  the  use  of  this  prayer,  while 
the  succeeding  chapters  can  not  fail  both  to  instruct"  the  head 
and  improve  the  heart.  We  have  not  read  a  more  interesting 
book  for  many  years,  and  can  most  cordially  recommend  it  to 
every  lover  of  chaste  theological  literature." 

FARMER'S  AND  EMIGRANT'S  BOOK. 

By  JosiAH  T.  Marshall,  Author  of  "  Emigrant's  True  Guide." 
12rao.,  cloth,  500  pages. 

The  publishers  are  gratified  that  they  are  enabled  to  satisfy  the 
universal  demand  for  a  volume  which  comprises  a  mass  of  su- 
perior material,  derived  from  the  most  authentic  sources  and 
protracted  research. 

The  contents  of  the  "  Farmer's  and  Emigrant's  Hand-Book  "  can 
be  accurately  known  and  duly  estimated  only  by  a  recurrence  to 
the  Index  of  Subjects,  which  occupies  ticeniy-four  columns,  com- 
prising about  ^fifteen  hundred  ditferent  points  of  information 
respecting  the  management  of  a  Farm,  from  the  first  piirchase  and 
clearing  of  the  land  to  all  its  extensive  details  and  departments. 
The  necessary  conveniences,  the  household  economy,  the  care  of 
the  animals,  the  preservation  of  domestic  health,  the  cultivation  of 
fruits  with  the  science  and  taste  of  the  arborist,  and  the  produc- 
tion of  the  most  advantageous  articles  for  sale,  are  all  displayed 
in  a  plain,  instructive,  and  most  satisfactory  manner;  adapted 
peculiarly  to  the  classes  of  citizens  for  whose  use  and  benefit  the 
work  is  'specially  designed.  Besides  a  general  outline  of  the 
Constitution,  with  the  Naturalization  and  Pre-emption  Laws  of 
the  United  States,  there  is  appended  a  Miscellany  of  120  pages, 
including  a  rich  variety  of  advice,  hints,  and  rales,  the  study  and 
knowlerlge  of  which  will  unspeakably  promote  both  the  comfort 
and  welfare  of  all  who  adopt  and  practice  them. 

The  publishers  are  assured  that  the  commendations  which  the 
"Farmer's  and  Emigrant's  Hand-Book"  has  received,  are  fully 
merited  ;  and  they  respectfully  submit  the  work  to  Agriculturists, 
in  the  full  conviction  that  the  Farmer  or  the  Emigrant,  in  any 
part  of  the  country,  will  derive  numberless  blessings  and  im- 
provements from  his  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Marshall's  manual. 


APPLEGATE  &  CO/S  PUBLICATIONS. 


Ellen,  or  the  Chained  Mother,  and  Pictures  of  Kentucky 
Slavery. 

Drawn  from  Real  Life.    By  Mary  B.  Harlan. 

"This  little  volume  is  full  of  sympathetic  scenes  and 
touching  narratives  of  -wrongs  peculiar  to  American  Sla- 
very. It  is  written  in  a  happy  style  and  chaste  language  ; 
is  free  from  abusive  epithets  or  unkind  words,  and  will 
facinate  the  reader." 


Review  of  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin ;  or,  An  Essay  on  Slavery. 

By  A.  Woodward,  M.  D. 

The  Evils  of  Slavery  and  the  Remedy ;  The  Social, 
Civil,  and  Religious  Condition  of  the  slaves,  their  Treat- 
ment, etc. ;  African  and  Anglo-Saxon  characters  con- 
trasted ;  Emancipation,  results  and  consequences ;  Relative 
duties  of  Masters  and  Servants. 

"  This  work,  although  a  book  for  the  South,  is  devoid 
of'Southern  ultraism,  and  will  be  read  with  profit  by  many 
intelligent  Northern  readers." 


Religious  Courtship;  or,  Marriage  on  Christian 
Principles. 

By  Daniel  Defoe,  Author  of    Robinson  Crusoe." 

**  Who  has  not  read  Robinson  Crusoe  ?  It  has  facinated 
every  boy,  and  stimulated  his  first  taste  for  reading. 
Defoe  has  been  equally  happy  in  this  present  work,  in 
interesting  those  of  riper  years,  at  an  age  (Shakspeare*s 
age  of  the  lover)  when  the  mind  is  peculiarly  susceptible 
of  impressions.  Although  but  few  copies  of  this  work 
have  ever  been  circulated  in  America,  yet  it  has  a 
popularity  in  England  coextensive  with  his  unparalleled 
'  Crusoe.'  " 


APPLEGATE  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


METHODIST  FAMILY  MANUAL. 

By  Rev.  C.  S.  Lovell.  12mo.,  embossed  cloth.  Containing  the 
Doctrines  and  Moral  Goveriinient  of  the  Methodist  Church,  with 
Scripture  proofs;  accompanied  with  appropriate  questions,  to 
"Wliich  is  added  a  systematic  plan  for  studying  the  Bible,  rules 
for  the  government  of  a  Christian  family,  and  a  brief  catechism 
upon  experimental  religion. 

This  work  supplies  a  want  which  has  long  been  felt  among 
the  members  of  the  Methodist  Church.  Asa  family  manual,  and 
aid  to  the  means  of  grace  and  practiced  duties  of  Christianity,  it 
is  certainly  a  valuable  work.  It  also  contains  the  Discipline  of 
the  Churcli,  with  Scriptural  proofs,  and  appropriate  que.^tions  to 
each  chapter.  It  is  certainly  an  excellent  book  for  religious  in- 
struction and  edification.  We  most  henrtily  commend  it  to  the 
Methodist  public,  and  hope  it  may  have  a  wide  circulatiou  and 
be  made  a  blessing  to  all. 


REMARKABLE  ADVENTURES  OF  CELEBRATED 
PERSONS. 

Large  l2mo.,  gilt  sides  and  back.  Beautifully  illustrated. 
Embracing  the  romantic  incidents  and  adventures  in  the  lives 
of  Sovereigns,  Queens,  Generals,  Princes,  Travelers,  Warriors, 
Voyagers,  <fec.,  <fcc.,  eminent  in  the  history  of  Europe  and  America. 


FAMILY  TREASURY, 

Of  "Western  Literature,  Science,  and  Art.  Illustrated  with 
Steel  Plates.  Pvo.,  cloth,  gilt  sides  and  back. 
This  work  most  happily  blends  valuable  information  and 
sound  moralitv,  with  the  gratification  of  a  literary  and  imagina- 
tive taste.  Its  pages  abound  in  sketches  of  history,  illustrations 
of  local  interest,  vivid  portraitures  of  virtuous  life,  and  occa- 
sional disquisitions  and  reviews. 


Christianity,  as  Exemplified  in  the  Conduct  of  its 
Sincere  Professors.    By  Rev.  W.  Secker. 

This  is  a  book  of  rare  merit,  full  of  thought-exciting  topics, 
and  is  particularly  valuable  as  an  aid  to  Christian  devotion. 
12mo,  embossed  cloth. 


APPLEGATE  &  GO  'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


TEMPERANCE  MUSICIAN. 

A  choice  selection  of  original  and  selected  Tfrnperance  Muaie, 
arranged  for  one.  two.  three,  or  four  voice-i,  with  an  extensive 
variety  of  Popular  Temperance  Songs.  32ino. 

Tliis  is  a  neat  volume,  well  printed,  and  well  bound,  c->ntainin»  2-56  pa^es, 
II  the  best  collectioo  of  lemwranoe  song^  and  music  we  have  5een.  Were  a 
few  cnpie*  gecureJ  in  every  town  in  Ohio,  in  the  hands  of  the  warm-hearted 
friends  of  the  Mnine  Law,  an  element  of  p<iwer  und  interest  would  be  adde«l  to 
temperance  meeting*,  an  I  a  stron  :er  i  npuUe  given  to  the  onward  march  of  tbo 
Mid  water  army. — Summit,  {O.,)  Beacon. 


This  will  certainly  b«!Come  one  of  the  most  popular  temperance  son^  book? 
which  has  been  publishe  1  in  the  coantrv.  We  thiak  it  i-;.  so  far  as  we  have 
examined,  the  b€«t  collecii  jn  of  sonz^  we  have  seen.  Some  of  them  are  ex- 
ceedingly beaatiful  and  affecting. — T.  /np^r^nix  Chart. 


This  is  a  popular  Temperance  Song:  Book,  designed  for  the  people,  and  should 
be  In  every  family.  We  can  recommen  J  it  to  the  patronage  of  all  our  tem^^^e- 
rau'-e  friends,  as  the  best  temperance  son:^ster,  with  music  attached,  we  have 
Been.  The  music  in  this  work  is  set  according  to  Harrison's  Nume-al  S.  stem, 
for  t\vo  reasons:  FirsD.  because  it  is  so  simple  and  scientific  that  all  the  peojl* 
can  ea-ily  learn  it.  Second,  it  i<  difficult  to  set  music  in  a  book  of  this  slxfi 
aad  thape,  except  in  numerals. — CUvdand  Cjmmercial. 


UNIVERSAL  MUSICIAN. 

By  A.  D.  Fillmore.  Author  of  Christian  Psalmist,  <tc.,  contain- 
ing all  Systems  of  Notation,    New  Edition,  enlarged. 

The  title,  "Univ.-r.sal  Musician,  '  is  adopted  because  the  work 
is  designed  for  everybody.  The  stvle  of  expression  is  iu  coninion 
plain  English,  so  that  it  may  be  adapted  to  the  capacities  of  all, 
instead  of  simply  pleasing  the  fancy  of  the  few. 

Most  of  the  mu-ic  written  in  Harrison's  Numeral  System  of 
Notation,  because  it  is  the  most  iutel  igible  of  all  the  different 
systems  extant,  and  is  therefore  better  adapt.-d  to  the  wants  of 
community.  Music  would  be  far  better  understood  and  appre- 
ciated by  the  people  generally,  if  it  were  all  written  iu  this  way. 
For  it  is  more  easily  written,  occupies  less  space,  is  more  quickly 
learned,  more  clearly  understood  is  less  liable  to  be  forgotten, 
and  will  auswer  all  common  purposes  better  than  any  other. 
But  the  world  is  fuil  of  music,  written  in  various  systems,  and 
the  learner  should  acquire  a  knowledge  of  all  the  principal  varie- 
ties of  notation,  so  as  to  be  able  to  re  td  all  music.  Toafford  this 
knowledge  to  all,  is  the  object  of  the  present  effort. 

Poetry,  which  is  calculated  to  please  as  well  as  instruct,  has 
been  carefully  selected  from  many  volumes  already  published, 
and  from  original  compositions  furnished  expressly  for  this  work. 
Much  of  the  music  is  original,  which  is  willingly  submitted  to 
the  ordeal  of  public  opinion.  Some  of  it  certainly  posse>ses  some 
meri',  if  we  may  judge  from  the  avidity  with  which  it  is  pil 
fered  and  offered  to  tlie  public  by  some,  would-be,  authors 


APPLEGATE  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


CTniFersalliad  ;  Or  Confessions  of  UniTcrsalism.  A  Poem  in  twelve  Can- 
to«.  to  which  are  added  Lectures  on  Univer?alism.  wherein  the  system  is  ex- 
plained, and  its  chief  arguments  considered  and  refuted. 

Salvation  by  Christ.    By  Rev.  Wm.  Sherlock. 

iEolian  JLyrist.  By  Kev.  Wm.  B.  GnxaAM,  Pastor  of  the  First  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Church.  Columbia,  Tenn,    Figured  Notes,  250  pages. 

Amerirau  Church  Harp.  A  Choice  Collection  of  Hymns  and  Tunes 
adapted  to  all  Clu-isiian  Churches.  Sinrring  Schools,  and  Private  Families. 
By  Kev.  W.  FanNEHART.    12mo.,  half  morocco. 

The  Camp  ITIeeting  and  Sabbath  School  Chorister.  Bj 

Aarov  Cos. 

Sacred  ITIcloaeon,  A  Collection  of  Pvevival  ITjTnns.   By  Rev.  R.  M.  Dalbt. 

A  Biographical  Sketch  of  Colonel  Daniel  Boone,  the  Fir.st 
Settler  in  Kentucky,  interspersed  with  incidents  in  the  early  annals  of  the 
country.   By  Tuiothy  Flint.    12mo.  Emba.ssed  cloth. 

liifeof  Tecnmseh,  and  ofhU  Brother  the  Prophet,  with  a  nistorical  Sketch 
of  the  Shawnee  Indians.    By  B.  Drake.    12mo.,  embossed  cloth. 

liife  and  Adrentnres  of  Black  Ilawk,  with  Sketches  of  Keokuk, 
the  Sac  and  Fox  Indians,  and  the  Black  Uawk  War.  By  B.  Drake.  12mo., 
embossed  cloth. 

Western  A  dTcntnrc.    By  M'CLtJjf^.  Illustrated. 

liC^isi  &  Clarke's  Jojirnai  to  the  Kocky  ITIonntains.  Illod- 
trated.    12mo..  sheep. 

liife  and  Essays  of  Ben.  Franklin.   ISmo.,  cloth. 

Ifledical  Student  in  Europe,  Or  Notes  on  France,  England,  Italy, 
&c.   Illustrated  with  steel  plates. 

The  Poor  ITIan's  Home,  Or  Rich  Man's  Palace;  Or  Gravel  Wall  Build- 
ings. This  is  one  of  the  most  desirable  book?  published,  f 'r  all  who  contem- 
plate erecting  dwellings  or  out  hou>:e3,  as  the  cost  is  not  over  one  third  that 
of  brick  or  frame,  and  quite  as  durable.  Illustrated  with  numerous  plans 
and  a  cut  of  the  author's  residence,  with  full  directions,  that  every  man  may 
be  his  own  builder. 

Kjectnres  and  Sermons.    By  Rev.  F.  G.  Black,  of  the  Cumberland 

Presbyterian  Church.   12mo.,  embossed  cloth. 
A  New  History  of  Texas,  from  the  first  European  Settlements,  in 

16S2,  down  to  the' present  time — including  an  account  of  the  Mexican  War, 

together  with  the  Treaty.  Paper. 
ITIap  of  the  Western  RiTcrs.    By  S.  B.  Munson.   Being  a  map  of  the 

navigaWe  parts  of  the  Missouri,  Mississippi,  Ohio,  Illinois,  Cvunberland,  and 

Wabash  Rivers,  w  ith  a  Table  of  Distances. 
A  New  History  of  Oregon  and  California.    By  Laxspord  W. 

Hastings.  Paper. 

Parley's  America,  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  Islands,  Tales  of  the  Sea,  Greece, 
Rome,  Winter  Evening  Tales,  Juvenile  Tales,  Bible  Stories,  Anecdotes,  Sun, 
Moon,  and  Stars  :  new  and  revised  editions. 

Parley's  Right  is  Mizht.  Dick  Boldhero.  The  Truth  Finder,  Philip  Brusque, 
Tales  of  Sea  and  Land,'  Tales  of  the  Kevoluaon: 

Bradley's  Housekeeper's  Ouide  and  Cook  Book;  Or  a  plain 
and  economical  Cook  Book,  containing  a  great  variety  of  new,  valuable,  and 
approved  receipts;    12mo:,  cloth; 

Ijyons'  English  Grammar.  A  new  Grammar  of  the  English  Lan- 
guage, familiarl-  explained,  and  adapte^l  to  the  use  of  Schools  and  Private 
Students.  The  work  is  so  arranged  as  to  infallibly  secure  the  attention,  to 
awpken  inquiry,  and  to  leave  the  most  lasting  impressions  upon  the  mind 
of  the  learner."  12mo..  cloth. 

C«mmon  School  Primer. 


; 


i 


